marcus allen of Nexus magazine and his views on the Apollo missions and the fact that the hasleblad cameras had no viewfinders yet the pictures bought back are perfectly in frame?
I think there is a reasonable argument to be had here.
I'm not saying that they never went to the moon but i do wonder IF IT WAS WHO THEY SAY IT WAS WHO WENT?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no-yRo1Cd50
Quote from: stealthyaroura on June 26, 2012, 12:52:59 AM
marcus allen of Nexus magazine and his views on the Apollo missions and the fact that the hasleblad cameras had no viewfinders yet the pictures bought back are perfectly in frame?
I think there is a reasonable argument to be had here.
Not really, as not all photos are perfectly in frame (the fact that we do not know what they wanted to frame helps getting that idea) and it's relatively easy to point a camera in the right direction even without a viewfinder.
Something like a cowboy drawing his gun and shooting without aiming it, it's a question of practice. :)
Hi Armap, i see what your saying but some of the examples are just too good to be true imo
and add to that the fiddly button and there was no way of telling if the film was wound on!
No there are a lot of holes in the official story.What about the radiation effects on the film?
and dont get me started on the light sources used LOL
Quote from: stealthyaroura on June 26, 2012, 02:38:25 AM
Hi Armap, i see what your saying but some of the examples are just too good to be true imo
and add to that the fiddly button and there was no way of telling if the film was wound on!
Too good to be true? I haven't seen any.
What about the bad photos? Not all photos are good.
QuoteWhat about the radiation effects on the film?
Does that mean that all photos of the Moon are fake? Because the Apollo missions were not the only ones photographing the Moon, there are hundreds of photos taken from orbit that do not suffer from the radiation, and those made (more or less) the same trip.
Quoteand dont get me started on the light sources used LOL
OK, I won't. :)
In some of my research I found out that they were all given these cameras to take home and shot every thing they could. They practiced with them for months until they could do it in their sleep. The cameras used are of very good quality and it is hard to make a bad photo. It is also hard to figure out what they were really after in the frame unless the other astronaut was there. There are many photos that are out of frame, on an angle over exposed, Burt by the sun and so on. A simple pass through the entire rolls of film can show this.
Back in the day when I was using my 35mm film camera every day, I could shot it and load the film blind folded. After awhile it gets like riding a bike. Rarely looked at the settings or through the lens. Didn't need to anymore. ( now I would have to ) So my guess is this can be a learned thing if you want to spend money on film for months.
As far as the light sources, I am the guy! Toss one up and lets take a look..All the research I ever did was on 17. But you may toss up what ever you wish to. As long as there is no bad feelings I will look at it and give you a feed back. Be sure to state which shot it is from and give the NASA link also. Just some photo from the web does not count because it might have been worked on. All of us will go out to NASA and get the original there. Pick the Hi-res photo and not the silly thumbnail ones. Rather the missions were real or not is up to you but we can look at a photo and see what is there and why. At least try!
Deuem
I might point out that just because it's from NASA does not follow that the photo has not been "worked on..." Plenty of evidence that many have been...
Quote from: Amaterasu on June 27, 2012, 03:19:42 PM
I might point out that just because it's from NASA does not follow that the photo has not been "worked on..." Plenty of evidence that many have been...
I agree but then at least we are getting it from the same source. And after all unless someone else was up there on on set with them then they should be the ones in question. Not something with no ties. I bet you could add 2 light sources to any photo. You have enough talent in PS.
Deuem
Ah, ye flatter Me. [smile] Fair enough, Deuem. Single source is the best.
Quote from: Amaterasu on June 27, 2012, 04:04:09 PM
Ah, ye flatter Me. [smile] Fair enough, Deuem. Single source is the best.
See your smile is contagious, Even my cat wants to get in on it. (http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/DeuemsCatsmiling.jpg) He has my eyes, Cute little Deuem cat.
Several years ago a team of us went after one of the 3 light source photos and after several months we found out it was a photo that had around the internet world and was altered to made NASA look even worse than they are. So if I am going to waste any time checking NASA, I want to use their prints to see what they do. A lot of us are like that now. We are in a world of CGI and people that use it to get their kicks. So those are simple ground rules for me. It has nothing to do with the OP.
Deuem
Quote from: Amaterasu on June 27, 2012, 03:19:42 PM
I might point out that just because it's from NASA does not follow that the photo has not been "worked on..." Plenty of evidence that many have been...
Well get posting some threads with the evidence then. I love this stuff. :)
We can't discuss evidence if we haven't put any on the forum surely?
Great reply's, i fully agree! research the evidence for your self
rather than take some other guy on his word alone,I have seen quite a
bit of Marcus Allen's work on this subject and others.
I do find some of it plausible,we all know NASA worked on a lot of the
Apollo pics but it's a fair enough question to ask me to find some pics
I deem dodgy IE light source's,I don't have any saved but i shall look through
the NASA achieves and see if i can find a few that i think
need an expert's take on them (Deaum) ;) when i find the time a to do
some legwork.Be patient.
Anyone wanting to do research on the Apollo photos should really get a hold of the old LIFE magazine from that time. I still remember the first time I saw them printed on glossy paper and believe me, a computer screen does NOT do them justice! They were jaw droppingly good, so good that even at the time as a 15 year old, I wondered how it was possible.
And yeah, there was never a star in the background that I can remember. Just that astonishing pitch black, alone in the Universe look.
Quote from: FrozenAlchemy on June 28, 2012, 02:57:00 AM
Anyone wanting to do research on the Apollo photos should really get a hold of the old LIFE magazine from that time.
I have a copy of that :D July 1969
(http://media.nowpublic.net/images//7b/4/7b46153c4e22b557eecbcb90a2d1651c.jpg)
Available here;
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41jDU1r61dL._SL500_AA300_.jpg) (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000S0XTAU/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=pegasreseacon-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=B000S0XTAU)
Life Magazine, 1969 Special Edition, To the Moon and Back (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000S0XTAU/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=pegasreseacon-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=B000S0XTAU)
Quote from: deuem on June 27, 2012, 02:39:01 PM
As far as the light sources, I am the guy! Toss one up and lets take a look..
Okay
Click on image for full size then explain to me why the sun being behind the LEM and them not having a flash, the front of the LEM is clearly and brightly lit.
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5863-69.jpg) (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5863-69.jpg)
Source: www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5863-69.jpg
nice example zorgon, This one looks a bit to good to be true? multiple
light source's. But i'm no expert i was mealy saying i think Marcus Allen
has bought some important issues to light with his work on the moon pic's.
(http://nasa-images.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/4.jpg)
ETA
using image search will usually take you right to the source
Take the above pic i posted, it's not just that it looks to good to be true,just take a look at the dust that IS NOT THERE that should of been kicked up off the rocket motor and dumped on the pads? Then look at the LM it looks like a flimsy model! And we know MANY were made. could 2/3 people fit in there?
Then take a look at the horizon, really that flat? i find it hard to believe that there are no boulders strewn about. :o
Quote from: stealthyaroura on June 29, 2012, 02:39:08 PM
Take the above pic i posted,
The one that says "image deep link = bandwidth theft"? :)
It was saying that to Me too, but is now just a broken image.
I suppose a Wikipedia source is better than that wallpaper site. :)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/5927_NASA.jpg/1018px-5927_NASA.jpg)
Now, where do you see multiple light sources? Multiple light sources would create multiple shadows, something that doesn't exist on that photo. And no, it's not "too good to be true" either, it shows too much ground, probably a result of having a chest-mounted camera.
Also, I don't understand why the dust blown by the engines should have landed on the landing pads, as it wasn't blown vertically.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 30, 2012, 09:39:52 PM
The one that says "image deep link = bandwidth theft"? :)
Quote from: Amaterasu on June 30, 2012, 09:50:10 PM
It was saying that to Me too, but is now just a broken image.
Repaired with original from NASA
Quote from: stealthyaroura on June 28, 2012, 10:36:00 PM
nice example zorgon
You say "nice example zorgon"
Okay so...
...what is wrong in my picture besides the horizon? (this is about lighting ;) )
Let's see, Z; the sun is casting shadows at an angle to the Lem, the backside of the lem is definitely illuminated by a different light source that appears to be behind the camera to the upper left, the horizon is wayyy too close;
seeker
Quote from: the seeker on July 01, 2012, 03:24:40 AM
Let's see, Z; the sun is casting shadows at an angle to the Lem, the backside of the lem is definitely illuminated by a different light source that appears to be behind the camera to the upper left
Lets start with that The sun is BEHIND the LEM according to the shadow, yet the front is lit up as bright as day when it should be pitch black in shadow
Now the astronaut coming out of that hatch... even the inside of the hatch area is lit up clearly.
There will be some reflected light from the surface of the moon, but stats are available on the amount of that reflection. There is no way reflection accounts for all that light
Now look closely at the clip below then check it in the full size image. Look where I put the yellow arrow and you will see a straight line where the image quality changes, like the exiting astronaut has been pasted over top
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/Vault/LEM_002.png)
I'm looking at the end of His backpack and thinking, no way would a light from the camera region light up that surface so brightly. There is DEFINITELY a light source to the left of camera.
How many light sources are on the Moon to start with.
1) The Sun
2) The Stars
3) The Earth
4) Relective Light from above
5) Reflective Light from the LeM
6) Possibly of another source such as a Flash or light, Man Made.
7) Photo manipulation Addition of light to certain areas.
On 1 through 5, think of your life on Earth. For # 2 there are many nights I can walk around and see by star light if the clouds are gone. What difference does that light make if it is daytime or not. It is still added to the mix. On #3 The Earth, When our moon is in the sky we can again read the paper and walk around with no extra lights. Even take pictures by moon light. Now we are many times the moons size, so I imagine we reflect a lot of light also. Just because it is daytime does not stop this either. Add reflections off of the surfaces and Astronauts equipment and I can see at least 5 light sources to begin with.
If you all can agree or dis-agree is in question. After that we look at #6 and 7 for proof.
But I see it as 5 to begin with.
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on July 01, 2012, 01:00:50 PM
How many light sources are on the Moon to start with.
1) The Sun
2) The Stars
3) The Earth
4) Relective Light from above
5) Reflective Light from the LeM
6) Possibly of another source such as a Flash or light, Man Made.
7) Photo manipulation Addition of light to certain areas.
On 1 through 5, think of your life on Earth. For # 2 there are many nights I can walk around and see by star light if the clouds are gone. What difference does that light make if it is daytime or not. It is still added to the mix. On #3 The Earth, When our moon is in the sky we can again read the paper and walk around with no extra lights. Even take pictures by moon light. Now we are many times the moons size, so I imagine we reflect a lot of light also. Just because it is daytime does not stop this either. Add reflections off of the surfaces and Astronauts equipment and I can see at least 5 light sources to begin with.
If you all can agree or dis-agree is in question. After that we look at #6 and 7 for proof.
But I see it as 5 to begin with.
Deuem
And I disagree. [smile] There is no way the backpack end could be illuminated that brightly at that angle without an immediate light source to the left. Reflected light is diffuse and would not create that degree of contrast.
What's wrong with that photo is that is not a photo, it's a mosaic created with several photos and, apparently, a fake Sun, as that Sun doesn't look like any other Sun captured on Apollo missions' photos. The rightmost leg of the LM also looks fake, as photo AS11-40-5865 shows a different shadow and some lens flares.
The fact that this is a mosaic makes it easier to have a photo where the light is not the same in all elements of the mosaic.
The photo that shows the astronaut exiting the LM doesn't have the Sun pointing at it directly, so that photo was taken with different settings, showing what was in the shadow (but not in the dark, as the Moons' surface reflects the light, as we can see here on Earth) better than in a photo with a light source pointing to the camera.
Photo AS11-40-5863HR, showing the astronaut exiting the LM.
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5863HR.jpg)
In photo AS11-40-5866, if there was another light source, the shadow of the astronaut should be projected onto the LM's entrance, unless it was a large, indirect light source, like the light reflected by the ground.
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5866.jpg)
In photo AS11-40-5867 we can see a slight diffuse shadow of a tube on the astronaut's back, consistent with the light reflected by the ground.
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5867.jpg)
On photo AS11-40-5862 (not used in the mosaic) we can see that there aren't any direct shadows, the light reaching up to the astronaut and the LM looks indirect.
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5862.jpg)
The Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal says that this mosaic was created by a Ed Hengeveld. I sent him an e-mail yesterday but I haven't had an answer, at least not yet. :)
I am sorry to ask but I never got as far as stating anything about the backpack or anything about the photo yet. Just the reasons there could be light. That is all, no more. I am still working on my other results.
I posted 7 reasons why there could be light, can anyone add more or dis-count any of the 7.
I see all Apollo photos with 5 natural reasons and at least 2 added reasons for light.
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 01, 2012, 01:43:27 PM
Reflected light is diffuse and would not create that degree of contrast.
That depends on the camera settings, a camera taking a photo of a highly reflective white suit in the shadow, with a somewhat reflective grey ground extending behind it could take a photo looking like that with no problems.
Moon Photo AS11-40-5863-69 Posted by Zorgon
The Original as posted by Zorgon.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/AS11-40-5863-69FromZorgon-1.jpg)
Night time: done as a test, others show more
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Nighttime-1.png)
Mid Range: This process is a good one and it will point out all of the items I am talking about lower in this post.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/MidRange-1.png)
Full range: Kind of speaks for itself. I do like the yellow circle and arrow. Nice touches.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/FullRange-1.png)
Impossible: With color burning a layer the Astronaut should have disappeared.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Impossible.png)
Close up of burn, Again this should be all dark by removing all light. It is still as bright or brighter than the sun is.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/WhiteringandAstronautPSColorBurn.png)
Many Questions: I have only added 14 numbers on the photo here of questions, there are even more.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Manyquestions.png)
1) Strange light pattern behind dish with no accounting for it.
2) Out gassing from a light
3) Another back flash from unknown source
4) A ring or tube piece left on the ground, where did this come from
5) Unexplained shadow under the nozzle
6) Looks like 2 probes
7) C&P line for sure
8 ) Miss connection of photo
9) The one and only reflection I found. See lower photos
10) The Suns ray extend in front of the Lm. Impossible to do
11) Questionable rock. Giving me a false shadow color ( minor, maybe me )
12) The suns rays do not stop like this, they should fill the entire sky and it has been washed clean.
13) If you lay in lines from that Sun to the shadow lines you find they don't match very well
14) No sun rays found on the surface besides 15
15) The actual line for the sun which is missing
All in all this photo has been highly manipulated to the point I cant tell if it started off as real or not. It could very likely be a set piece made up for publicity photos. There is so much out of place I had a hard time figuring out where to start.
1 reflection: I looked all over the photo for a good reflection and this is the best one
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/1Reflection-1.png)
1 reflection worked: Once the refection is processed it does look like it could have come from a sun, not the one in the photo. A flash should come out more black and white. This very small point of light has a lot of power. It is highly possible that with the original sun this is a bounce off the lens. The angles would work out better.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/1reflectionworked.png)
Ladder stuff: I want to take a look at the ladder right under his right foot. It looks to me that the toe of his right boot is showing under the ladder rung. Not connected to this foot but a different shot. So the ladder rung was a cut point and they missed the toe. oops
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Ladderstuff.png)
Toe: When taking the tip of the toe off the bottom and the rest of the shoe off the top and adding them together and processing them they have patterns that are identical and unlike the ladder rung. So his foot was in a different position in one photo and they missed it. I only caught it after processing it and it had a different pattern and color.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Toe.png)
Sun rings; I have done many sun rings and these are not up to par.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/SunRings.png)
Sun in color burn to play with
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/SuninColorBurn.png)
More gassing: In one of the other close up works I noticed what looks like there is some type of out gassing coming from the docking light. I can not figure this one out. Like hot air coming straight out.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Noregassing.png)
Out gassing: This is another close up of what looks like out gassing.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/OutGassing.png)
Face in the ring: This one is for fun or it is a big problem. If you follow that gas above back to the light. The white donut, Ad then balance the photo just right, a face begins to show up in the inside of the ring. Rather it is a fluke of lighting or a real person it is quite interesting. If you look carefully you can make out all the facial details. The left ear and inside rings, 2 eyes hair line, nose mouth and chin. On the mouth you can see both lips closed and the head is slightly tilted down and to the left. By the size of the Astronauts it would seem to be correct. I am not one for seeing faces but this one did pop out. Have fun at it. Note the photo posted has lost some of the lightness and is darker than the original.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/FaceinRing-1.png)
Deuem
For those that say that this side of the LM should be dark, why aren't the buildings dark in the following photo?
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Sam_0464-1.jpg)
The Sun is visible, the side of the buildings turned to the camera and opposite the Sun are clearly visible.
If the Sun is not visible in the photo I can use different settings and make the buildings lighter.
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Sam_0466-1.jpg)
That's what happened with the astronaut in the image. The photos where he appears do not show the Sun, so they could be taken with different settings, better to show something in the shadows.
We can also see that the white building behind the abandoned factory, that has some areas that got a new paint coating, those areas are bright even when in the shadow, even when the Sun is in the image.
Now, something that shows that the image posted by zorgon is made from several images.
When looking at dark areas the levels tool can be used to look for signs of copy/paste actions, as most people do not distinguish the darker shades, so they think they are using black while the values are not really zero.
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Apollo111.jpg)
We can see a line around the upper part of the LM and another line to the left, showing where the photo with the astronaut exiting the LM ended. The "lens flare" also looks fake, while the shadow of the rightmost leg of the LM has a different hue from the rest of the shadows.
For those that have Photoshop (I haven't find a way of doing it with Gimp), the "Replace color" tool is also useful to detect image tampering (of the dumb kind, any good image tampering is undetectable).
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Apollo112.jpg)
We can see the same things that were noticeable with the levels change, that the upper area was copied from somewhere else and that the part with the astronaut is from a specific photo. We can also see the strange lens flare and the shadow of the rightmost leg of the LM.
And finally, something I learned with undo. :)
Separating an image into hue, saturation and brightness (or lightness, or value, the result is the same), any slight changes in hue (resulting from badly done tampering) become noticeable.
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Apollo113.jpg)
We can see once more the upper part has a different hue around it, as does the part with the astronaut. Now we can see that the lens flare has only one hue and that the light around the Sun and the Sun itself are made of distinct hues, with sudden changes from one hue to the next and no mixing of hues, making it very likely to be CGI. We can also see that everything below the Sun, from the horizon to the lower edge of the image has some strange hues when compared with the rest, meaning that it was probably painted or cloned from some other photo.
That's what I find strange in that photo. ;D
But ArMap, the first photo is on Earth with an atmosphere. Water vapor alone scatters light in all directions on reflection, no?
the moons atmosphere is minimal with no water vapor. Was the point only about camera settings?
Quote from: zorgon on July 01, 2012, 05:28:35 AM
Lets start with that The sun is BEHIND the LEM according to the shadow, yet the front is lit up as bright as day when it should be pitch black in shadow
Now the astronaut coming out of that hatch... even the inside of the hatch area is lit up clearly.
There will be some reflected light from the surface of the moon, but stats are available on the amount of that reflection. There is no way reflection accounts for all that light
Now look closely at the clip below then check it in the full size image. Look where I put the yellow arrow and you will see a straight line where the image quality changes, like the exiting astronaut has been pasted over top
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/Vault/LEM_002.png)
Not only does it appear to be a paste job, but there is also a reflection of a light source in the clip almost directly under your arrow 8) definitely looks like a studio mock up...
seeker
Quote from: zerocd on July 01, 2012, 11:36:24 PM
But ArMap, the first photo is on Earth with an atmosphere. Water vapor alone scatters light in all directions on reflection, no?
As far as I know, it scatters in refraction, not in reflection, that's why you cannot see through fog and you cannot see yourself reflected in the fog.
Quotethe moons atmosphere is minimal with no water vapor. Was the point only about camera settings?
It was about camera settings and the fact that light is reflect by all surfaces (except a perfect matter black), even darker ones, in some degree.
When the camera is set up to take a photo including a strong light source like the Sun, all other things appear less bright, but when the Sun is not visible in the photo we can use different settings that show better things that would otherwise appear darker.
Quote from: ArMaP on July 02, 2012, 12:36:51 AM
As far as I know, it scatters in refraction, not in reflection, that's why you cannot see through fog and you cannot see yourself reflected in the fog.
On Earth when the sun goes down, we have about an hour of twilight
QuoteTwilight is the time between dawn and sunrise or between sunset and dusk, during which sunlight scattering in the upper atmosphere illuminates the lower atmosphere, and the surface of the earth is neither completely lit nor completely dark. The sun itself is not directly visible because it is below the horizon. Owing to the distinctive quality of the ambient light at this time, twilight has long been popular with photographers and painters, who refer to it as the "blue hour", after the French expression l'heure bleue. Twilight is technically defined as the periods between sunset and sunrise during which there is natural light provided by the upper atmosphere, which receives direct sunlight and scatters part of it towards the earth's surface.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight
Since the skeptics and main stream scientists claim that there is no atmosphere on the moon to produce twilight, then either there IS an atmosphere...
OR the ambient light provided in Earth photos like your buildings is from another light source on the Moon images
OR they were taken on Earth
If you are saying that they added different overlays with different settings, then you have offered proof of NASA image tampering :D
Quote from: zorgon on July 02, 2012, 01:43:08 AM
OR the ambient light provided in Earth photos like your buildings is from another light source on the Moon images
The ambient light is not a result of the atmosphere, some metres of atmosphere cannot do the same effect as several kilometres do during twilight.
That's one of the reasons why older CGI looks bad, as it only had light and shadow, with no light reflected by the other objects present in the scene. (I think they call that radiosity or something like that=
QuoteIf you are saying that they added different overlays with different settings, then you have offered proof of NASA image tampering :D
No, proof that someone else (Ed Hengeveld) made that image and gave it to the Apollo Surface Journal. They have many things (mostly panoramas) made by other people.
PS: if that light scattering is a result of atmosphere then does that means that in a vacuum chamber there are only hard shadows?
The photo in question has been manipulated in so many ways, I gave up counting. As ArMap stated it is said to be a man made mosaic by Mr. Ed Hengeveld. The first big clue is the huge yellow ring in the photo with no gradients. Stop right there if you want to.
On the entire photo I did find 2 things of interest to me. The face and the ring on the ground. Sticking with the ring, we should find out where it is from. It was my number 4 in the many items photo. It is just sitting there on the ground and should stay put. It should show up in another photo unless it was picked up. Where did it come from?
As far as an atmosphere, I did not pick up anything. But this photo has had the sky washed black and it would have only showed at the horizon if there.
Armap, nice job, if you got time to figure out the ring, that would be a great help. HoD
Deuem
I got a reply from Ed Hengeveld.
He says that was made with Apollo 11 photos pasted in Photoshop. Then he added the Sun as Photoshop effect, so the Sun is the only thing not real in that image.
I would LOVE to post that picture at ATS and ask DWJ001 and a few others about that sun and tell them its a photoshopped image
I wonder now just how many other Apollo shots are cut and paste, enhanced by photoshop and have a false sun added for effect... then published as real publicity shots?
I have been saving this one for awhile. Thanks a lot for doing the legwork :D Have some gold
From John
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/Apollo/Aldrin_half_way_out_01.jpg)
There is always my old favorite too... the one that is my pet peeve with NASA making the moon grayscale
Now you be quiet on this one ArMap... as you were there when NASA pulled the rug out from under us on all those Apollo tiffs - I never did find where they hid them :'(
But then I haven't looked since then :P
An interesting side note on that...
I had gotten a letter from someone at NASA from a NASA/JPL address asking me to please remove the XFile theme from John's section on our website. The reason he asked was because it was embarrassing to him when he logged on to the site from work :P
He then included a home email for me to contact him, but he let me know where he was from. So I looked him up in NASA phone book and turns out he is highly placed in NASA's ISS image team
As it turns out this ISS image gallery is where we found the high res .tiffs of Apollo images that we were given to believe don't exist. So in our haste to post this great find, I didn't download them all first... a mistake I will never repeat.
As ArMaP was in the middle of downloading the images went POOF and were pulled The ISS ones are still there today but not the Apollo
Coincidence? I think not
Here is the image... Papajake at ATS spotted the problems with this... see if you can... Then I will post the rest :D
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon7/Full_Moon/ISD_highres_AS11_AS11-44-6552Small.png)
Well to start, I will list a few,
the Moon is gray scale and the Earth is color.
This photo to be correctly viewed with North and South Poles needs to be turned 90 CCW
Then by looking at the Earth we see a land mass on the bottom, Maybe that is Australia, If so then all of Asia looks to be missing.
The Earth is all messed up. And I would say that the clouds are too big to be seen like that from that distance.
The terminator line is clean cut. No gradients Also I can not pick up any of the dark side of the Earth. It has been cut.
The black of the sky has been washed.
There is no/zero atmosphere readings on Earth.
I would have to know all of the camera lens and such to do a size ratio. But the Earth does look too big for me compared to other work I have done. This would also help out on measuring the Moons Horizon radius.
I would have to study the flight path and time to determine what craters should be showing.
So in Conclusion, Another publicity shot made up of at least 3 parts.
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on July 04, 2012, 09:10:20 AM
This photo to be correctly viewed with North and South Poles needs to be turned 90 CCW
Rdunk noticed the same thing :D but he only sent PM :P
Here is the original examination by papajake
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/Tampering/AS11_AS11-44-6552-lr.jpg)
THIS is the official original from NASA... WHY is it so important for them to remove the color from moon images?
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/Tampering/ISD_highres_AS11_AS11-44-6552.JPG) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon9/Tampering/ISD_highres_AS11_AS11-44-6552.JPG)
Credit NASA Click for full size
ArMaP and I have a long running friendly feud over color... after a long time and many threads we finally came to an understand. While I would use the term 'true color' that did not sit well. See he likes to nit pick :D and is Portuguese so English is not his first language
What I meant by 'true color' is what our eyes would see. In the end, in a thread about the 'TRUE" color of the sky on Mars, I came to understand that to him it would be 'real color' A small point but in the end... the sky on Mars was BLUE ;D
I will do that thread here and add to it, but I bring it up because over 'there' in the Clementine images we were lucky to have a release scoop on, is where we met Oct 2006. The Clementine mention is important for this next image. I will also be doing the Clementine thread and link people to that dataset for hunting.
Both ArMaP and now Pimander are able to run ISIS so we can get to see the big gigabyte data files. Patience... take time to gather these mega thread :P
BTW A few have expressed concern as ArMaP is still a mod at ATS... I vouch for him 100% There is no conflict of interest.
So here is the next photo... a USGS release
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon7/Clementine_Satellite/em_1250x375.jpeg)
So once again we see a pretty blue marble and a very gray moon.
Now the fact that the moon is gray scale is obvious, but the earth... that is a very interesting shot is it not? Well its a composite too... because that image was taken on the way to the Moon by Clementine, using the camera as a test
The image below shows the African continent imaged by the ultraviolet/visible camera at five different wavelengths on a clear day from a distance of 384,000 km.
THIS is the original image, from a PDF on the mission from LLNL
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon7/Clementine_Satellite/Africa.png)
Enlarged, enhanced, color corrected and pasted into a black sky with a gray scale moon
I looked at that image of the earth - the blurry one - and thought... That looks like an enlargement - like what a smaller image would come out looking like if enlarged.
And LO! That is what They did!
The above shot would have to be from a new moon position so it would be easy to date it. And it could never be Apollo. Apollo are all Earth trailing shots. To our left of the sun.
What is ISIS?
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on July 04, 2012, 10:34:54 AM
What is ISIS?
A really hot Egyptian babe with Wings
(http://ayospeaksfree.webs.com/photos/Admired-Artwork/isis-drawing2.jpg)
or
USGS Isis: Planetary Image Processing Softwarehttp://isis.astrogeology.usgs.gov/Isis requires Linux
Integrated Software for Imagers and Spectrometers (http://isis.astrogeology.usgs.gov/)
You need Linux to run it.
Since I don't run Linux, I will have to pass on it so I am left with the hot babe with wings, all in all a better deal! Deuem
Quote from: zorgon on July 01, 2012, 01:05:45 AM
You say "nice example zorgon"
Okay so...
...what is wrong in my picture besides the horizon? (this is about lighting ;) )
Sorry been away from MY laptop and busy. well the fact that you can see the astronaut
when he should be in full darkness as the sun is clearly in front of the LM and him.
where is the lighting coming from?it SHOULD be cast in a shadow? NO?
Quote from: stealthyaroura on July 07, 2012, 06:12:57 PM
it SHOULD be cast in a shadow? NO?
It is in the shadow, as it should be.
The shadow is not completely black, as they never are when there's a reflective surface near.
Quote from: ArMaP on July 07, 2012, 07:11:44 PM
The shadow is not completely black, as they never are when there's a reflective surface near.
Quote from: ArMaP on July 02, 2012, 10:06:03 PM
I got a reply from Ed Hengeveld.
He says that was made with Apollo 11 photos pasted in Photoshop. Then he added the Sun as Photoshop effect, so the Sun is the only thing not real in that image.
Kinda makes shadow talk a moot point :P
I won't say its photoshoped but it is :P
Quote from: zorgon on July 07, 2012, 07:18:41 PM
Kinda makes shadow talk a moot point :P
Why? The Sun is fake, the light is not.
Does anyone know why he added the Sun "as an effect"? Strange behaviour if you ask me. Or am I just some crazy? ::)
Quote from: ArMaP on July 08, 2012, 06:50:22 PM
Why? The Sun is fake, the light is not.
Well if the sun is fake then what is the light source and what direction is that light source coming from?
besides the point is 'NASA image tampering"
I would say adding a photoshopped sun is 100% 'NASA image tampering"
Quote from: zorgon on July 08, 2012, 07:32:14 PM
Well if the sun is fake then what is the light source and what direction is that light source coming from?
besides the point is 'NASA image tampering"
I would say adding a photoshopped sun is 100% 'NASA image tampering"
One for the list. The potential for a mega-thread is enormous. LOL
But motive. WHY?
Quote from: Pimander on July 08, 2012, 07:22:34 PM
Does anyone know why he added the Sun "as an effect"? Strange behaviour if you ask me. Or am I just some crazy? ::)
I don't know, maybe he didn't like the available photos where the Sun was visible?
On that sequence of photos there isn't any showing the Sun, maybe that's why he made a fake one.
Quote from: zorgon on July 08, 2012, 07:32:14 PM
Well if the sun is fake then what is the light source and what direction is that light source coming from?
The Sun in that
mosaic is fake (probably because there's no photo with the Sun in that sequence), but all photos have, obviously, a light source.
Quotebesides the point is 'NASA image tampering"
I would say adding a photoshopped sun is 100% 'NASA image tampering"
It depends on the meaning. It's definitely "tampering of NASA images", but was not done by NASA.
Quote from: Pimander on July 08, 2012, 07:40:28 PM
But motive. WHY?
Probably to show the whole Lunar Module with the astronaut exiting it, instead of just several photos with the several stages of the astronaut exiting the LM and only parts of the LM showing.
ArMap, I think you need to post the words and location of where it was said to be done and by who.
The sun in this photo would have been to the right, lower and almost cut in half. The guy moved in a new one to the photo hence all of the shadows are off. He made a publicity shot. The same story we are seeing here, also goes with all of the Pan shots. They all are manipulated. We need to get to the originals. Also forget all photos in books and posters. All of them have been worked. I strongly suggest going after the best res originals only. Every thing else has been worked on purpose and can be tracked down.
Now if this was an original then we have a great case. I could change his white space suit to green and the sun to purple. Manipulation is easy. Getting the originals is not.
The motive is easy, to make money selling posters to people that don't know any better.
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on July 09, 2012, 09:45:32 AM
ArMap, I think you need to post the words and location of where it was said to be done and by who.
Page One
Quote from: ArMaP on July 02, 2012, 10:06:03 PM
I got a reply from Ed Hengeveld.
He says that was made with Apollo 11 photos pasted in Photoshop. Then he added the Sun as Photoshop effect, so the Sun is the only thing not real in that image.
::)
Yea, I am with that since he wrote it, But ArMap also stated that he found the lead in an Apollo journal and then followed up with Ed. That link sent ArMap to Ed. Deuem
Quote from: deuem on July 09, 2012, 09:55:19 AM
That link sent ArMap to Ed. Deuem
Saright :D
Here is the photo that was used as inset
(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/hires/as11-40-5863.jpg)
AS11-40-5863 (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11-40-5863.html)
Lunar Module "Eagle" composite by Ed Hengeveld (http://www.apolloarchive.com/apg_thumbnail.php?ptr=545&imageID=AS11-40-5863-69)
AS11-40-5863-69 indicates 6 images used
The Space Art of Ed Hengeveld (http://spacearttribute.blogspot.com/2006/02/space-art-of-ed-hengeveld.html)
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/as11-40-5863hrmr.png)
Used the hi res off the link and Mid range processing
Deuem & thanks for the links above.
Looks like a martian with horns sucking out the air :o
I think that would be a moontian...
Did you notice the two little Moontains on the horizion that seemed to have eaten the light?
I need to look at that area agin. Deuem
Yeah. Looking forward to Your assessment.
Quote from: deuem on July 09, 2012, 09:55:19 AM
But ArMap also stated that he found the lead in an Apollo journal and then followed up with Ed.
It was on this page (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.html).
It says:
QuoteEd Hengeveld has used portions of 5863 to 69 to create this view of Buzz on the porch. Neil did not capture the top rear of the LM with these pictures and Ed has filled the gap with a portion of AS11-44-6576, which was taken in orbit after undocking.
Hi, I worked on it over and over but nothing great to say. It could be just a scatter effect or a moontain range over the horizon. The current moons horizon is a clear element. This pattern does not interfere or overlap it at all. Guess I have to check out the landing site again to see if any moontains were at their N to NNE direction.
One thing that always bothered me is: All he had to do was to walk into the shadow of the Lem and point the camera up. Earth. They should have done more of those shots.
Hi Zorg, do you have the phone N° of that hot Egyptian babe ? :)
As European, I should not be so far from her :) Maybe Armap would be
interested too !!! :)
Btw, do you know what is John doing these days ? Is he " en bonne santé " ??
I haven't seen him here for days ... Hope all is going well with his back :-[
All the best :)
Guerande
Easy guys. I hear she has a powerful husband! Might not want to go there.
Happened to be reading a bit about the myth. Where have I heard this story before?
Quote"I am the Resurrection and the Life"
is essentially what the Egyptians chanted about their god Osiris, the judge of the dead. He had been slain by "the powers of darkness" embodied in his wicked brother, Set. His sister and wife, Isis, had sought the fragments of his body and put them together again and he had arisen from the dead, and was enthroned in the world of souls, to judge every man according to the weight of his works. The resurrection of Osiris was the basis of the Egyptian's firm hope of eternal life. Every year Egyptians mourned for days over the slaying of Osiris and then rejoiced exceedingly over his resurrection.
Sorry off topic.
Great thread. Love the two sidedness and disection of the pics. No question it is photoshopped. Now were the pics here in the studio like the Red Bull commercial says or up there?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsM4t0P-nqo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsM4t0P-nqo
Quote from: deuem on July 01, 2012, 04:54:14 PM
Moon Photo AS11-40-5863-69 Posted by Zorgon
This is pic that convinces me that something is not right. The shadow on the moon from the LEM is totally dark. If light was being dispursed this shadow should not be this way, and we would not see the astronaut so brightly, or even the side of LEM, if the only light was from the sun,
Z.... Why does the Sun appear this way ? (in the Photo above... 1st Page) :D
We are led to believe there is NO Atmosphere on the Moon by the NASA ?
And we also plainly see, "Erosion" (Rounded Hills and crater edges etc.)
Guess we are expected to believe anything, if it comes out of the NASA ? :D
Quote from: The Matrix Traveller on July 19, 2012, 08:28:53 AM
Z.... Why does the Sun appear this way ? (in the Photo above... 1st Page) :D
We are led to believe there is NO Atmosphere on the Moon by the NASA ?
And we also plainly see, "Erosion" (Rounded Hills and crater edges etc.)
Guess we are expected to believe anything, if it comes out of the NASA ? :D
apparently it was put in place with photoshop so its not really meant to be there.
read through the thread it's there somewhere.
Just a nice press release photo from NASA for the masses i think.
Quote from: stealthyaroura on July 19, 2012, 01:17:30 PM
Just a nice press release photo from NASA for the masses i think.
Not even from NASA, as it was a Dutch artist that did it. :)
oh THAT photo. yeah some dutch guy called Ed Hengeveld did the piece as art.
(god i hope thats him LOL)well the sun piece is his "art" and the rest is a stitch
of mosaic pieces from a nasa pic.
i think. :o[youtube]<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/c3OM2MA1pic?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[youtube]
Quote from: stealthyaroura on July 19, 2012, 06:23:12 PM
oh THAT photo. yeah some dutch guy called Ed Hengeveld did the piece as art.
Yes, that one.
I sent him an e-mail and he confirmed it. :)