Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Proof that JAXA photoshopped their Apollo 15 images!

  1. #1

    Proof that JAXA photoshopped their Apollo 15 images!

    Take a look at the image taken by the Jaxa Selene mission from 3 or 4 years ago, of the Apollo 15 landing site.



    Now compare it to the most recent images taken of the Apollo 15 site taken by LRO. (About 1/3 up from the bottom, mid-way horizontally).

    Scale the LROC to match the Selene image, what do you get?



    Interesting! Jaxa must have photoshopped the image to match up with how NASA/ASU were going to photoshop their image several years later.

    Or, they actually imaged the disturbed regolith around the LM, ALSEP site and in-between, but couldn't unambiguously identify it in their image. I propose that they did just that: actually imaged the disturbed regolith at the Apollo 15 site. Which would make this the first non-NASA image to successfully show artificial artefacts on the lunar surface.

    Which is nice!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    5,427
    So we've proven...what?

    Notice the difference in the side which is shadowed.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    So we've proven...what?
    Well, given that:

    (a) people claim the LRO images are fake; and

    (b) the LRO images match the earlier Selene images;

    It therefore follows that:

    (c) the Selene images must have been faked in the same way the LRO images were faked.

    Notice the difference in the side which is shadowed.
    True. But the significance of that depends on whose side of the fence you're on. If you accept the reality of LRO and Selene, you can use that evidence to cross-check the times the spacecraft supposedly flew over the A15 landing site. OTOH, if you think they were faked, you can claim it as evidence of the fakery (on the basis that if something is faked then all evidence must somehow point that way, even if you can't explain how).

  4. #4
    I think it's a cool discovery.

    I would like to see how the Hoax proponents talk it away.
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by postbaguk View Post
    Take a look at the image taken by the Jaxa Selene mission from 3 or 4 years ago, of the Apollo 15 landing site.
    To seal the deal, can you dig up a pre-Apollo 15 Luna image of the same spot? I don't have the patience to go off with a magnifying glass.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,522
    Quote Originally Posted by captain swoop View Post
    I think it's a cool discovery.
    Indeed. Do some people have too much time on their hands, or what.

    I would like to see how the Hoax proponents talk it away.
    "You can't prove that JAXA image is really that old. They could have created/modified the image and inserted it among the older images. NASA probably did that without JAXA knowing."

    "Anyway, it isn't anything to do with Apollo 15; it is just some marks on the ground that are being presented that way: can you spell pareidolia" (Actually, I doubt hoax believers can spell pareidolia. Or at least, they probably don't think it exists; it is something that NASA invented to be able to explain away evidence that they couldn't hide.)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    18,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    (Actually, I doubt hoax believers can spell pareidolia. Or at least, they probably don't think it exists
    It's a lot easier to believe that it exists than the two you mention.
    I can never spell it, and sometimes wonder if the word exists because it's neither in my dictionary nor in my spellcheck.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    To seal the deal...
    Do you require additional evidence before accepting Apollo as having happened as advertised??...


    ...can you dig up a pre-Apollo 15 Luna image of the same spot? I don't have the patience to go off with a magnifying glass.
    Even with a magnifying glass, pre-Apollo images of that area simply are not of the same resolution as post Apollo images....in other words, you would be disappointed.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,161
    Even with a magnifying glass, pre-Apollo images of that area simply are not of the same resolution as post Apollo images....in other words, you would be disappointed.
    Now if there is one thing this forum has taught me is that there is no limit to how much you can magnify an image and pull out valid features. Have faith!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Now if there is one thing this forum has taught me is that there is no limit to how much you can magnify an image and pull out valid features. Have faith!
    Obligatory 1m44s youtube link. A little enhanced.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    18,945
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    Obligatory 1m44s youtube link. A little enhanced.
    I like how they threw in Jacques Clouseau'S zuum.
    They could have thrown in a Mel Brooks too. Brophy zooming the lobby picture in High Anxiety.

    I'm surprised they didn't throw in a lot more Star Trek. On the other hand with the resolution they find things at, you could argue that they normally view high resolution images at low resolution to begin with.

    Computer; Augment.... and repeat.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    To seal the deal, can you dig up a pre-Apollo 15 Luna image of the same spot? I don't have the patience to go off with a magnifying glass.
    I might try and see if I can dig up some pre-Apollo Lunar Orbiter images, not the most user-friendly of interfaces though

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by postbaguk View Post
    I might try and see if I can dig up some pre-Apollo Lunar Orbiter images, not the most user-friendly of interfaces though
    I did have a look already myself, but it wasn't the easiest of jobs(I was wondering whether somebody at NASA may have an idea which images would possibly show the areas). It isn't really that important, but the absence of them pre-Apollo could be something even more significant than JAXA alone. Do you have plans to do this with all the landing sites, it is good stuff?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Do you require additional evidence before accepting Apollo as having happened as advertised?
    No, but apparently there are a few diehard hoax believers who do.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    No, but apparently there are a few diehard hoax believers who do.
    Since the "diehards", by definition, are unwilling to accept any evidence that they are wrong, no matter how conclusive, their opinion is irrelevant.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    ...the absence of them pre-Apollo could be something even more significant than JAXA alone.
    How would it be "more significant"? Please clarify what you mean.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    How would it be "more significant"? Please clarify what you mean.
    Well, we would have an image of the area before the landing, showing no such marks, an image after the landing from Japan showing the marks, and images from LROC showing them in greater detail. The whole set. Seems more significant to me.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    Well, we would have an image of the area before the landing, showing no such marks, an image after the landing from Japan showing the marks, and images from LROC showing them in greater detail. The whole set. Seems more significant to me.
    Why place so much emphasis on photographic images when we have actual, tangable, physical evidence of the Landings? (ie. returned Lunar samples)

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,053
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Why place so much emphasis on photographic images when we have actual, tangable, physical evidence of the Landings? (ie. returned Lunar samples)
    Probably because most people can't touch them. Most people have never even seen Moon rocks in person. But anyone willing to do a little work can compare images well enough to recognize the truth of Apollo in the privacy of their own homes.
    _____________________________________________
    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!"

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,161
    It is also the age old photographic interpreters problem. To assess the authenticity of a Moon rock takes quite a lot of knowledge and some testing. Even interpreting the test results is hard without background knowledge. Whereas because people use their eyes every day they think they are quite capable of analysing a photo - because it is just looking at something. It has been interesting to see how the internet has generated a parallel problem with research and assessment. Now everyone 'knows' how to use Google they think that they are perfectly capable of searching for and analysing texts and producing valid conclusions from what they find.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Why place so much emphasis on photographic images when we have actual, tangable, physical evidence of the Landings? (ie. returned Lunar samples)
    Who is placing emphasis on anything As defenders of Apollo, we often assemble corroborating proof from available evidence. This is one of those cases.

    Many people who are able to change their views will do so more on visual evidence than rocks, IMO. In every case, when a specific part of any of the missions is examined, the consistent nature of it holds up to scrutiny, all I am suggesting with this example, is a way to make a great piece of evidence, a perfect piece of evidence.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,805
    i remember how i helped change the mind of a person on the old BABB about the "face" on Mars after the newer higher resolution images came out that showed it to be just a funny looking mountain.. this one guy tried saying that it was a pic of a different area and all the resident experts kept rattling off all the scientifical explanations to try to change his mind.. i decided to do an experiment of my own by taking one of the newer high resolution images and shrinking it down to something like 10% of it's original size in whatever crappy free photo editing software i had.. then i saved it,opened it again, and zoomed way in.. it looked exactly like the famous Viking image from the 70's. when i pointed it out and explained how to do it, he admitted that he was probably wrong and i got an "attaboy" from a few people on the board..

    anyways, would something like that work with this to show the less technically inclined conspiracy theorists why they are wrong?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    I agree the ubiquity of photography contributes to the impression that anyone with eyes can be a skilled interpreter of photography. To be sure, photographic analysis first begins with observation. But useful analysis is the product of skilled observation, which is the product of education and practice over and above the mere ability to look at a photograph.

    The easy availability of tools with which to manipulate digital images contributes to this impression. But as I'm fond of saying, "Owning a copy of Adobe Photoshop does not make you a photo analyst any more than owning a chisel makes you Michelangelo." In order for the tools to be useful in the discovery of truth, one must understand how they work (and often how they don't work). Popular shows such as the CSI series further lead one wrongly to suspect that "enhancing" a digital image is merely a matter of pushing a button and basking in the results produced by some magical process.

    Photographs are important because we still consider them suitable documentation of an event. There is better evidence, yes, of the Apollo missions, but the photography is part of the whole body of evidence that requires explanation in any hoax theory. The hoax believers say, "You can't use the Apollo photography as evidence because it can be so easily faked." Then when you ask them what they would want as better evidence, the answer is frequently, "More photography."

Similar Threads

  1. Earth rise-images captured by jaxa
    By suntrack2 in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2007-Dec-09, 04:42 PM
  2. Help with Apollo images
    By MoonToMars in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2004-Jul-07, 02:54 AM
  3. New (to me) Apollo hoax proof
    By snake river rufus in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2003-Aug-05, 03:48 PM
  4. Proof photos for Cosmic Dave (slow images)
    By JayUtah in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 2002-Jun-03, 09:54 PM
  5. Proof Apollo is real now on sale!
    By Art Vandelay in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2002-Apr-26, 04:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: