Actually, I think he was stating that the errors in question can be found in Photoshop, not that the original images were processed with it. Of course, that still wouldn't be the most wrong argument ever presented.

So, peter J., just for clarification, are the images you mention the original scans, or the ones converted to jpeg?

__________________
A Nerd can figure out how long it will take the original Enterprise traveling at warp 6.5 to travel from Regulus to Antares.
A Geek with think he can use that to pick up a girl in a bar.
A Dork knows he can't pick up the girl with it, but will hang around for hours anyway, just in case she asks.
She might. You never know.

For 1969 that would be Photoshop omega release 0.6. System requirements: 4K of RAM, 19" television, and 276 punch cards.

Meanwhile yet another Apollo hoax claim filled with speculation but providing no substantiating evidence.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

There is so much questions (or evidence) that it seems the believers are always on the defense...

Loaded language. Any statement challenging the authenticity of Apollo is by definition an attack on it; therefore any answer to such a statement is by definition a defense. Is it inappropriate to call attention to statements we believe and are informed are in error? Why is it so important to you that people who disagree with you and your beliefs be characterized as somehow on the ropes or strainin' to do the explainin'?

...to explain how something "doesn't look right".

I have found more often than not that a conspiracy theorist's concept of what should "look right" is in fact not supported by theory or by empirical study. So much of the activity is in debunking the conspiracist's underinformed expectations.

I went for photos and video analysis approach in my quest to find the truth.

Really. And do you have any training in those fields of expertise? I do, at the University of Michigan and the University of Utah -- specific study in photographic interpretation and analysis. Many engineers, in fact, learn various topics in photo analysis.

I have found that almost ALL of the thousands of photos from NASA website have serious flaws...

For example?

...mostly with lighting and shadows, studio light sets, sun, props, cut and paste, backdrops, reflections, etc.

Among the people here you will find many who are experts (often professionals) at lighting, shadows, studio lighting, sets, props, photographic editing, backdrops, reflections, etc. For example, I'm a professional engineer working in aerospace. I've also been a photographer for about 30 years (sadly only occasionally paid) and I work in lighting and set design at a local semi-professional theater. Are you game to see whether your analysis will stand up to scrutiny by this panel?

I encourage people to look very carefully at the photos - study photography and lighting.

I have. I am trained in photographic analysis (which is different than photography). I have also spent the last nine years studying the principal conspiracy theories regarding Apollo and am quite well informed about the standard claims.

I've done as you asked. I'm prepared to entertain your claims and their supporting evidence. Please begin at your convenience.

Use all your "Photoshop" abilities, for there are many details in the "darkness."

Actual details? Or merely stuff that is in every photo when manipulated pointlessly in a digital editing program? I presume we're going to see the standard parade of quantization and encoding artifacts artificially amplified and surrounded by handwaving hype.

The defects becomes very apparent when you are armed with the knowledge of knowing what your looking for.

And how did you acquire the knowledge of knowing what to look for?

Do your own research...

Did you do your own research? Or did you just copy the conclusions and methods of your favorite conspiracy theorist author? I hope you realize that the Moon landing hoax theory is a very old subject here, and that the regulars are very familiar with the common arguments.

Btw, I was a firm believer of Apollo for a long time.

Every conspiracy theorist says this. A few even say they want to believe in Apollo again. Then it's funny to watch how desperately they cling to the conspiracy theory even after it is factually torn to shreds. What will you be?

I respect both sides of the argument as long as it's backed up with something credible.

Show me something credible.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

You know, I actually think you have a point there.

It's a question of politeness, of giving the Hoax Believers the benefit of the doubt. It has also been an opportunity to demonstrate to onlookers just how solid the evidence for the moon landings really is.

But the same conversation has been run over and over again. If I ran the board, I would greet each new HB (such as yourself) with the message, "Read the FAQ about the moonlandings - it covers everything from 'no stars' to 'waving flag' to 'Van Allen belt' to everything else you might have heard cited as 'evidence'. If you have new evidence (actual evidence) or a challenge which hasn't been adequately covered by the FAQ, then by all means post it. If not, the thread will be closed in 7 days. If you simply reiterate a question in the FAQ, you will be banned. If you fail to acknowledge an intelligent answer to any of your questions, you will be banned. If you simply admit that you didn't know as much as you thought, nobody will think any less of you."

I do not run the board, of course - I have neither the time nor the patience of the good people who do. But I do think it's time to put the HBs on the defensive.

So, peter j, give us some evidence. Real evidence. Show us the place where they filmed the landings. Don't just say, "The Nevada Desert," show us the actual location. Show us how they got the feather to fall as fast as a hammer. Construct for us a scenario that explains everything, including how independent nations tracked the progress of the spacecraft. Present to us a copy of the filming script, get for us a confession from the special effects people, show us where they buried the bodies of those who had to be "silenced".

Any one of these things would be so much more interesting than imaginary nitpicks.

I would rather a believer put up a reliable and believable alternative as mentioned above. Even down to suppliers of claimed lights and generators.

Welcome to BAUT, Peter J. I've been doing that for a long time too, almost since watching Sputnik 1 pass overhead in October 1957.

Been doing that since 1968 with a few years as a professional and parts of my job being analysing photos and teaching photography, and I've yet to see a decent argument for a hoax, or at least one that stands up to scrutiny.

There are other skilled and experienced photographers who hang out here and will be keen to hear what you say about the Apollo photos.

Please tell us you didn't watch silly little compressed videos on the internet, but real ones such as on the Spacecraft Films DVDs like the many hours of 16mm movie film and TV images from Apollo 17, including the lunar surface TV coverage long after Cernan and Schmitt left the moon. When I had the opportunity to watch all the Apollo 17 footage I thought some of it might be boring, but no way, I enjoyed the whole lot and watched some bits over and over, and read along with the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.

Now that you've "met" JayUtah (post 93), you may like to spend many hours doing research on his web site and gaining some idea of his knowledge of photography and Apollo:
http://www.clavius.org

You might find answers at Clavius to some of the questions your research raised, and Jay is most likely very keen to hear about anywhere you found him wrong at Clavius.

Anyway, do open a new thread and present your evidence for a moon-landing hoax. Please note that part of rule 13 here says, "...you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner."
Rules For Posting To This Board

Yeah, especially if you've already decided what you'll find.

Maybe I'm being emotional but I find that mildly insulting, what with me being 50 years old and having never doubted the Apollo missions at all.

Um, ok, Spock says you are wrong. Care to provide some evidence?

Done and done. I'm satisfied to my stadard of proof that we sent some manly men to make foot prints on the Moon. That was easy.

Typical 'common man' ploy. "I was one of you once, therefore I must be telling the truth". Seen it.

Welcome to the board.

EDIT: rats, there was whole other page of replies I missed. Sorry.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

I don't know about the rest, but personally I would love to see some examples of these photographs and their anomalies.

__________________
Spread the Love!

Find them on page 17...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916

So have I. Strangely, my conclusions seem to differ from yours.

Feel free to post some examples of these problems. I'd be interested to see exactly what I have missed.

It's very easy to find something if you have convinced yourself beforeheand that it is there.

Again, please do show us some examples.

I have and I am.

With respect, every hoax believer says this, and then they stubbornly cling to their conspiracy theory in the face of every counter-argument, even to the extent of refusing to do simple real-world experiments that would demonstrate where teir undertsanding is flawed.

If you provide something credible in favour of it being faked you will be the first person in my experience who has done.

Just to get this on the table now, here's what I have in my own collection of material relating to Apollo.

I have DVD quality versions of all the film and TV from all the Apollo flights, so don't expect me to restrict my analysis to low-quality clips from YouTube or the like. One HB tried that, insisting that a piece of foil was behaving in a very suspicious way considering it was supposed to be floating free in space, until I pointed out that the image compression meant that a thin tether was not visible on that clip but was in the original footage. It is also not uncommon for an HB to point to a ten second clip and insist it shows anomalous behaviour, but not show you the next ten seconds that shows him completely wrong.

I either have or have access to high resolution images from the lunar landings, so don't show me low-res jpegs and expect me to take them at face value. Again, HBs have tried to claim shadows or fiducials aren't present in some pictures when in fact they are but are lost in image compression.

I have other film material from the period in DVD quality, so don't try telling me things like the LLRV never made a successful flight, as I have film of it doing precisely that.

I have numerous publicly disseminated materials from the period, books written during and since the Apollo program by various people involved, I have met some of the astronauts, I have seen lunar soil and rock samples, and I have sufficient understanding of science to know what I am looking at in most cases.

So, what have you that is credible evidence for a fake, that fits all the evidence? What have you in the way of alternative explanation for how all the evidence was produced? I've heard people say it was all shot in the Nevada desert, but no-one has been able to point out a location with a whacking great rille in it as seen on the Apollo 15 footage. I've heard people claim the LM was obviously not up to the task, but when pressed have nothing better than their own unqualified opinion of what a spacecraft should look like to back that up. I've heard people claim the shadows should be parallel, but I have only to look out at the trees outside my office to see the flaws in that. If you have something better than those, then feel free to provide it. Otherwise, from our point of view, it's just same-old, same-old.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

Yeah, pretty much. Except it doesn't land on the fins.

__________________
Rovers forever! - ToSeek
"The only way to explore the universe is to go and look." - Brian Cox
Well, the best way to find out is to go there and, find out. - Raven's Cry
'Evolution and science are one thing, but you don’t mess with Yoko Ono. Everybody knows that. ' - 386sx

Nope. Been all over it. Nothing looks the same

No comment. But nope on that one too.

Uh... Haven't been there... Could be!

Perhaps 2001 was the government-funded test run to gain audience reaction around the globe, just to see if it was believable, if they could pull it off.

Good grief! What am I saying? (In Jar-Jar talk, "Wassa me is saying?") Next thing you know, you'll be reading the above gunk from some woo-woo site...

By the way - I like the movie, too. It's a little slow at times... I preferred 2010.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Mine: "Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that."

Heinlein's: "Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." "Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite."

Peter J, Hit and Run?

If you read my post more carefully, I never said THEY used Photoshop,you did. You are proving my point that many "reseachers" are not careful in reading and noticing detail. I said YOU need to use you "Photoshop" skills. You are also letting alot of emotion get in your way, perhaps you are insecure about what you think. Frankly, there's no way your going to get any objective analysis with a mindset like that. And, I'm not going to walk you through it step by step (and argue about it), your a big boy. You need to do your own research, because you have to go through that discovery process for yourself. I told you it is in most photos and all videos, if you want to look, it's not hard to find what I'm talking about. I told you what to look for. If you can explain all the photographic flaws that I see with some scientific explaination, that's just great, that's your own conclusion. I'm really not trying to convince you otherwise and don't worry about what it would take to convince me, why does it matter. The point of my last post is that there is much more there than meets the naked eye. Are you willing to admit that there might be something you missed? I did.

“Doubt, indulged and cherished, is in danger of becoming denial; but if honest, and bent on thorough investigation, it may soon lead to full establishment of the truth.”
Ambrose Bierce

Sure--there might be. Care to tell me what it is? Because that's your burden of proof, right there. I've told you what it would take to convince me I'm wrong--show me how it was done and tell me why it was done. What would it take to convince you that you're wrong?

Have you read the rules? I encourage it. Especially the specific rules for this section.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Personally, I believe that the burden of proof is on the apologist. For example, if I see a photo of a spotlight and its supporting apparatus, would it not be you that would have to explain how that got on the moon?

BTW - (reply to others) I use only NASA photos of highest resolution possible. I have many DVD quality videos. And no I don't use YouTube or grainy photos.

I think better first steps would be to determine if what you think you see is a photo of a spotlight, and then determine the provenance of this photo.

Then why are you reluctant to post them? I've done my homework. All the arguments supporting a Moon Landing Hoax seem to be by people who are least informed about Apollo.

__________________
Wanted: Diabolical Plan for World Domination.