On a moon hoax site I found a picture of an astronaut from Apollo 12 showing 2 other astronauts in the reflection of his visor. When I found the real picture here http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...12-49-7278.jpg or here http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-49-7278HR.jpg (Hi-Res) the 3rd astronaut isn't in the reflection. I posted the 2 pictures side by side here http://www.geocities.com/cigaretterepairman/hmm.html
What is going on? Did a conspiracist get handy with photoshop? Is there any way to tell which one has been altered? I know that the one with the 3rd astronaut from the hoax site is Low-Res so it makes it hard to examine it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cigarette_repairman on 2002-11-28 18:46 ]</font>

The "three astronaut" picture is created by British David Harland, author of "Exploring The Moon". He is a debunker like the rest of us.

Check out THIS:

"Finally, there is the case of the "extra" astronaut. Professor Harland's answer: "This is a spoof photo. I know, because I made it, circulated it and waited for it to turn up as newly-found proof that Apollo was faked."


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bad_Moon_Rising on 2002-11-28 18:53 ]</font>

I see. David Harland may have had good intentions but I don't think it is a real good idea to create and distribute faked photos that point to a hoax because many people will see it as evidence of a NASA coverup and never bother to check into it. I can see his reasoning behind creating such a photo. He was relishing the thought of being able to discredit a conspiracist as soon as they pointed to his faked picture as evidence. However, for every one conspiracist that he gets to discredit because of that there may be a hundred other people who have seen the photo and just silently believed it was evidence of a NASA hoax.

I first saw the 'three astronauts' photo in an 'alternative' media publication called "Hard Evidence". In that case it was attached to a slightly altered copy of a SPOOF moon hoax article originally published in "Big Issue".

Graham

Which moon site was this?

Graham

It was the moon hoax site that was mentioned in this thread http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...051&forum=3&11
This is the URL directly to the site
http://fakedmoonlanding.tripod.com

I forgot to include a link to the discussion on the "Hard Evidence" story.

Here it is:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...628&forum=3&21

I love Photoshop... I've done so many funny things with it. You know what we should all do, just to be arseheads? Those of us who are savy enough to do some fun things in Photoshop should get some images doctored up and send them to some of these sites to see if they believe it. That alone will show just how easily they will accept one idea but not the truth. I don't imagine all of those boys come to this site to read every post. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

__________________
jest

"Don't worry, everything is getting nicely out of control." -Douglas Adams

Try emailing some of the pictures to Clyde Lewis. He´ll believe anything, you email to him as long as the pictures are pro-Moon Hoax ! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Ummm...is that Yoda??
http://www.geocities.com/cigaretterepairman/yoda.html

1) Notice that the crosshair that should go over Yoda is missing!
2) There is something fishy about Yoda's shadow. I can't quite put my finger on it but I will!
3) Yoda doesn't seem to have a camera. Who took the picture?!
NASA has some 'splainin' to do!

(I couldn't resist firing up Photoshop myself LOL)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cigarette_repairman on 2002-11-28 20:52 ]</font>

And Yoda doesn't even need a space suit! Strong is he with the Force... But the radiation would still kill him, right Boo?

Send it to Eric Jones, editor of the ALSJ and he may include it in the Fun Pictures section of the ALSJ.

Harald

Those pictures in the "Fun Pictures" section of the ALSJ are great. However, I couldn't find any contact info on there for Eric Jones. Maybe that section is closed to further submissions. I didn't know they had a site like that. I have made quite a few spoof pictures from the Apollo photos like that in the past just for my own entertainment.

Look at the Updates page.

Look at the Updates page.

I'll look into it Harald. If anyone is interested here is another picture I made a while ago http://www.geocities.com/cigarettere.../startrek.html complete with shadows heading in opposite directions LOL.

Man, I didn't realize Kirk and company were so tall. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

Gotta remember, this is the moon. Can't trust your senses when it comes to judging distances. Near things look far and far things look near. So Back Off! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cigarette_repairman on 2002-11-30 05:48 ]</font>

Also, don't forget, they sent small men to the moon... to make small steps.

Harald

LOL Harald

David Harland may have had good intentions but I don't think it is a real good idea to create and distribute faked photos that point to a hoax because many people will see it as evidence of a NASA coverup and never bother to check into it.

That's exactly his point. Conspiracy theorists don't check into things very carefully. They don't verify origins or research alternate explanations or do anything that bona fide historians must do in order to ply their trade. By showing how easy it is to fool conspiracy theorists, he demonstrated the weakness of their method.

Understood Jay, but is it worth it? NASA almost had Mr. Oberg write a book to refute unsubstantiated claims. The main problem was teachers who didn't know how to respond to student's questions on the matter so NASA wanted to give them a guide (that is the way I heard it anyway). Since Mr. Harland's photo is not an obvious "done for fun" kind of spoof (after all, he did send it out trying to see who would bite) then people who see it are likely to question the moon landings. Elementary students aren't known for their diligent research into such things, they just ask their teacher. And as has been demonstrated by the calls NASA has been getting from teachers, they [teachers] aren't necessarily going to know how to respond to the question either. So I can see your point Jay and on the one hand there is benefit. On the other hand it spreads the idea that the moon landings were faked. I still think that a well done altered NASA photo masquerading as the real thing and showing an obvious impossibility (two astronauts visible in the reflection) does more harm than good if you are in the business of defending the moon landings.
I included that quote because I don't believe that giving the conspiracists more "evidence" is a wonderful idea. That is just one more piece of "evidence" that will need to be refuted later on. And I can see it now...even after you refute it you may end up with comments such as, "Well, that just goes to show how easy it would have been for NASA to fake the photographs."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cigarette_repairman on 2002-11-30 21:00 ]</font>

Understood Jay, but is it worth it?

That will always be a matter of opinion. I get as many letters from people who say I'm doing more harm than good with Clavius as I get praise. Nearly everything we do, whether to deliberately fake photographs or to take arguments at face value, can be thought of as a two-edged sword. My philosophy has always been that you do more harm by not talking about something than you do by talking about it.

Elementary students aren't known for their diligent research into such things, they just ask their teacher.

And perhaps that's something Mr. Harland didn't consider.

And as has been demonstrated by the calls NASA has been getting from teachers ...

Clearly there is a market for Oberg's work, and for mine and Phil's. I don't believe that we are playing into the conspiracy theorists' hands. I believe that people who understand these principles have a duty to help others to understand them, regardless of how much collateral credibility we give to charlatans and fakes.

I don't have a strong opinion on whether Harland's fakes help or hurt the hoax debate.

Have you ever written a book Jay? You are clearly qualified to do so. I have been to your excellent Clavius website (not to mention all the vast information contained in your BABB posts). If you have ever had anything published I would be interested in it.

I've written book-length treatments of various technical subjects for internal use in my employment. I have outlined a book on the moon hoax theory that John Witts and I were planning to write, but I shelved that when Jim Oberg announced his plans.

Now I don't know what to do. I don't think Jim is looking for a co-author, nor do I believe Jim and I have necessarily the same goals in mind. At this point I don't want to duplicate large portions of Jim's work and thereby dilute the market for both of us. I think my plan right now is to wait for Jim to publish his book, then fill in the gaps with my own.

5:11 A.M.
<a name="2-12-01.PS"> page 2-12-01.PS aka Pretty Simple
it seams pretty simple to me
scroll down thru the "LIST"
si' THAT Pi Man is not listed in the list
and just forget it ALL
----------------------
now back to Java (just in case you are listening Pi)
NO i do not drink the stuff. But That NOv Mac Mag
says something like (just a minute) Mathametica 4.2 ?:= 2java

<a name="2-12-01.AM"> page 2-12-01.AM aka add M
On 2002-12-01 08:10, HUb' wrote: to 5:29 A.M.HUb'
5:11 A.M. Allright? by entering the timestamp
before anything else {befor name or password (anything)}
I reduced the delay to a minimum? THUS
8:10 BA Time := 5:11 486 time which is about 15seconds fast
thier4 it would apear to me
that A? BA is 3 hours ahead
.....A.a minus 1 minute
OR B?
well ? Pi Man as you know already I dont do Java
apple{LETS} so script it however you like..
the price i see? pg 45 nov macworld for 4.2 = $1,880 (and yes i still have my 8088 & several 5.25 i might add? 5:41 A.M.

Do I read HUb` correctly when I see that he's using an 8088, not even a 386?? Wow, I thought the 386 was bad enough. Scarily, after reading Grab0raft's rosetta stone, HUb` is much easier to decode [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

I wonder if he sees our posts in much the same way as we see his?

As for the topic of this post, I firmly believe that MORE information, proofs, disproofs, spoofs that show errors, etc, are a good thing. The only thing I would have done different was place some sort of watermark someplace on the doctored photo so I could say "See? There's my mark proving I did this." ... well, proving it to the HBers, since the 3 astronauts is all the proof WE need to see it's a fake. I'd love to see a published debunking complete with photos duplicating (like the site posted last week, I forgot who posted it)the "anomolies". Although, Jay would REALLY have to dumb down his writing (even more than here?)for the general public [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

__________________
~Brad - Astropaparazzo
http://signaturedigitalimages.com

Jay wrote...

I have outlined a book on the moon hoax theory that John Witts and I were planning to write, but I shelved that when Jim Oberg announced his plans.

I think Jay is talking up my part in the project somewhat. Jay was to write the bulk of the substance of the book. I think my job was to ensure enough 'dumbing down' was done so that ordinary folks got the points. Being a non engineer, non scientist who 'sort of' knows how Apollo worked, I was hoping to make book as accessible as possible. That way, people wouldn't have to look up stuff to understand what Jay was on about, as I sometimes have to do. Mind you, I've found it much easier just to ask Jay. He's very good at explaining to us non techies what stuff does and how things fit.

Obviously, John, I didn't explain to you how much of your stuff I had planned to steal. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]