MoonFaker: Posing For Portrait.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lMuTiziCszU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xCxRidD8qE8


Put it simply, NASA was caught red-handed fixing the Fall-Off problem!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0tnqIKErQ7s

http://i31.tinypic.com/qrdikw.jpg

Now how more evidence anyone need to doubt EVERYTHING these liars says?!

original: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images...s11_40_5903.jpg
doctored version: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg

third version: http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5903.jpg


So, it looks like that NASA is desperatelly trying to fix the too obvious Fall-Off problem on their photos that prove without shadow of doubt that these photos are made in the studio, using studio light.
No Sun, no even lit Moon.
It is NOT the only one photo that NASA fixed. Another good example is AS11-40-5851:

http://i532.photobucket.com/albums/e...-40-5851-1.jpg

(newly fixed by NASA to: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/f...e/?AS11-40-5851 )

Good thing I have my backups

Damn, they are pitiful crocks! They should understand that they will not get away with editing photos as they see fit

Disgusted.

__________________
"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire
...just keep folding, just keep folding... :)

I guess, you never digitized a print/slide/negative collection. Never did it several times with different scanners and different software. Calling the first scan an original and anything later "doctored" is laughable.
Or even simpler: Give the same negative to five different print shops and you very likely get five very different results.

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

Yeah...I'm pretty well disgusted with amateurs who would practice "pretend science" and then act all outraged.

Try reading a book sometime...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Since the original is still available, why is it a big deal if the image was altered for publication elsewhere?

__________________
"One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon. That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough." Jason Roberts

Um, no.

Firstly, the original photos do no such thing as "prove without shadow of doubt that these photos are made in the studio, using studio light". That's plain rubbish.

Secondly, unless the "doctored" photos are being passed off as unaltered originals, there's no deception. Apart from the things noted in the posts above, why is it a bad thing (for example) to prepare photos for publishinjg? One of the most well known photos is of an Apollo crew member facing the camera. He was way off centre of the shot when taken ^* so when used in magazines and such the image is shifted to be more central. Another example (I think you alude to it in your post) is blackening of the "sky" - removing noise.

That is not deception, that's simply a reality of publishing.

(^* Funnily enough one of the hoax believers arguements is that all of the photos are "too perfect".)

You need to seperate the idea of "original" images and images prepared for publishing. The later are not for use in scientific study.

Besides, how incompetent do you think the "hoaxers" are?! After all, how hard was it for you to find the "original" images to compare with...!

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

Now how more evidence anyone need to doubt EVERYTHING these liars says?!

I have all the evidence I need that you've never duplicated a photograph in your life by optical means. None of these effects is unexpected.

And the problem with your artificial light theory is that the falloff with an artificial light would actually happen in the opposite direction.

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

How do you explain the lack of penumbral shadow? It must clearly indicate distant point source.

Actually, NASA leased the Sun to Speilberg for the shoot. He kept it in the studio while the filming was going on. That's why the rest of us are "in the dark" about that period.

__________________
Friendly Rabid Atheists (mostly)

Scanners and whatnot aside, I don't even think of those kinds of photo changes as doctoring even when they're deliberate modifications. I view it as an integral part of the process.

When I was taking photography classes in high school and college, students who didn't at least tinker around with exposure and contrast to try to make the images look better would receive poor marks for being slackers. The folks who were willing to put in more than a modicum of effort would also give special attention to particular parts of the photograph - dodging & burning, split contrast, suchlike. As long as it's not altering any actual scientific data (say, relative star brightness in an astrophotograph), doing that kind of stuff with a photograph is no more disingenuous than combing your hair or ironing your shirts. It's just a part of trying to look good.

Once again, no responses, or even explanations, from trodas. He lets youtube do his thinking for him.
Frankly, without watching the videos, I don't understand the argument, except that different variations of the photo look "different". My, my...how nefarious is that!!

bye, bye trodas...

Be fair, the thread wasn't even created until 18 hours ago. Not everyone checks BAUT daily, let alone several times a day.

The best scan for the famous Aldrin picture is 4400x4600 pixels and it is available in this web site: http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/
The scan is full frame without cuts, but it is not calibrated and it appears "flat" because the scan was done without any correction of the levels. I have put it here, in my web space:
http://www.diegocuoghi.com/files/ISD...11-40-5903.JPG

A calibrated hires version version (3900x3900 pixels) is available here:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS11-40-5903
click on "Print resolution" at the bottom of the page and you will have this one:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...11/40/5903.jpg

Other versions were made in different moments for publishing in magazines or web pages at low definition.

Nothing strange.

True, but Trodas has a history of starting threads, ignoring all the responses, and then starting new threads, sometimes about the very same topic.

__________________
"One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon. That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough." Jason Roberts

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

In 1969? Spielberg?

__________________
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!"

Of course, it's all part of the conspiracy.

__________________
Friendly Rabid Atheists (mostly)

By the way, I have photographic proof of NASA fixing photographs

Equipment
more evidence
How they did it
View of the secret facility (workers were kept in the dark)

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

To put a guy with seven directing credits, one of them unfinished, in charge? Some conspiracy.

__________________
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!"

I wonder if those pictures will show up on NASAscam someday as proof of a hoax. It wouldn't surprise me!

__________________
"One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon. That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough." Jason Roberts

As an aside, I wish to lodge a protest regarding the title of this thread. It has all the subtle devastation of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

How about we require some proof that NASA "fixed" any photos, ever, before asking if they did so again?

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

Hi all, this is my first official post so go easy on me if you disagree...


First off, you cannot blame NASA or accuse them of any conspiracy just because they fix their photos. These photos are released to the masses and represent their achievement in putting humankind on the Moon; ofcourse they're going to have the photos edited for cosmetic reasons. They're not goint to release grainy and out of focus photographs and even the great ones they will adjust them.
Just my 2 cents thats all

No no, Speilberg!

(and I"m only posting because I agree so much with Zeek64 but don't want to add a "me too!!")

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Oh, so it's like Senor Spielbergo? A non-union foreign replacement?

__________________
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!"

Well, sure, he wasn't so well known then.

He was doing stuff then though. From

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_...2.80.931975.29
(No real reason to mention this really, but I do remember the L.A. 2017 episode, though I haven't seen it since the '70s. I remember "Eyes" as well, though in fairness, I've seen it more recently and it wasn't as memorable.)

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

This is the ORIGINAL? I didn't know they had digital cameras/jpeg's in 1969...

Nice Fox-News-Talking-Head question mark in the thread title.

First, hi Zeek64, welcome to BAUT.

Second, while the "pretty" photos are the ones that probably get the most PR, in fact, NASA has released all of the photos from Apollo and they are available on the web (I'm sure someone will post some links). There are a lot there that are far from perfect. I can't say absolutely, but as far as I know, no photos were edited for cosmetic reasons.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Heck, I'm surprised that the original image isn't even a negative of some sort. . .

I'll do it. And welcome to BAUT, Zeek64.
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/picture.html
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/

__________________
"One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon. That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough." Jason Roberts