Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 44

Thread: NASA fixing photos again?

  1. #1

    Thumbs down NASA fixing photos again?

    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



    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.
    Last edited by trodas; 2013-Jan-26 at 12:42 PM. Reason: fixed missing images

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    4,115
    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by trodas View Post
    ...these liars...major snip...Disgusted.
    Yeah...I'm pretty well disgusted with amateurs who would practice "pretend science" and then act all outraged.

    Try reading a book sometime...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,809
    Since the original is still available, why is it a big deal if the image was altered for publication elsewhere?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,646
    Quote Originally Posted by trodas View Post
    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.
    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...!
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,646
    trodas, you are setting up a history of seagull posting: http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-...**-engine.html

    If you do not particpate properly in discussions that you start, actions will be taken.

    Thanks,
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,447
    Quote Originally Posted by trodas View 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.

  8. #8
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,673
    How do you explain the lack of penumbral shadow? It must clearly indicate distant point source.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by Glom View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,018
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    842
    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...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,018
    Be fair, the thread wasn't even created until 18 hours ago. Not everyone checks BAUT daily, let alone several times a day.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    15
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,809
    Quote Originally Posted by nauthiz View Post
    Be fair, the thread wasn't even created until 18 hours ago. Not everyone checks BAUT daily, let alone several times a day.
    True, but Trodas has a history of starting threads, ignoring all the responses, and then starting new threads, sometimes about the very same topic.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,646
    General note to BAUT members: Trodas has been warned, and the moderator team is watching. That's enough. Please don't speculate on mod actions in thread. Address the topic, not the poster.
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,454
    Quote Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
    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.
    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!"

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    In 1969? Spielberg?
    Of course, it's all part of the conspiracy.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    39,382

    Talking

    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)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,454
    Quote Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
    Of course, it's all part of the conspiracy.
    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!"

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,809

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    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)
    I wonder if those pictures will show up on NASAscam someday as proof of a hoax. It wouldn't surprise me!

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    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?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    15
    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

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    In 1969? Spielberg?
    No no, Speilberg!

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

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,454
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    No no, Speilberg!

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

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    In 1969? Spielberg?
    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
    His first professional TV job came when he was hired to do one of the segments for the 1969 pilot episode of Night Gallery. The segment, "Eyes," starred Joan Crawford , and she and Spielberg were reportedly close friends until her death. The episode is unusual in his body of work, in that the camerawork is more highly stylized than his later, more "mature" films. After this, and an episode of Marcus Welby, M.D., Spielberg got his first feature-length assignment: an episode of The Name of the Game called "L.A. 2017."
    (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.)

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

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

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by trodas View Post
    This is the ORIGINAL? I didn't know they had digital cameras/jpeg's in 1969...

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    261
    Nice Fox-News-Talking-Head question mark in the thread title.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    39,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeek64 View Post
    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
    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)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,018
    Quote Originally Posted by ginnie View Post
    This is the ORIGINAL? I didn't know they had digital cameras/jpeg's in 1969...
    Heck, I'm surprised that the original image isn't even a negative of some sort. . .

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    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).
    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/

Similar Threads

  1. UFOs on NASA Official Photos. STS 88
    By vasotech in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2011-Jul-20, 09:08 PM
  2. Where are the recent NASA photos of the oil spill?
    By Ong in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2010-Jun-23, 01:48 AM
  3. NASA Faking Mars Photos Too!!!!!
    By jrkeller in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2004-Jun-15, 05:10 AM
  4. NASA now faking Earth photos too!!!!!
    By jrkeller in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2003-Jun-27, 08:42 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: