NASA has been CAUGHT retouching and switching photos

[Duane Daman]

I didn't get anything backwards .. I presented two Apollo photos showing "distance" .. The smooth, featureless background was created using front screen projection, while the detailed background was accomplished by using a small scale set and models.. Sets and models that NASA has now admitted to creating for "simulation" purposes, during Project Apollo.. Models and sets which they have now also admited to destroying, for obvious reasons.

It's good to know that you have also used front screen projection in your photography work.. That means you understand exactly how NASA staged much of their Apollo photography.

No you did "get it backwards" and this post by you once again proves this point perfectly.

Lets go back in time shall we and review:

In another post I correctly pointed out:

First you postulate that the LACK of sharpness in the far background in a mid field photograph is an indication of fakery.

Then you contend that the SHARPNESS in the far background of a far field photo is the result of photographing a "small scale model".

Interesting choices on your part and really quite telling as to your understanding or...rather the lack of it...of the photographic process.

First your "front screen projection claim. Given the point of focus, and the distances found in that photo, an IN FOCUS background as you have suggested simply would not have been possible. Simple photo 101 DOF stuff. It's not rocket science. Here is a wonderful DOF calculator for you to play wiht...and maybe check your claims before making them.

http://www.photosmit...eld%20Wheel.pdf

And one for your Andriod phone, I love it on the evo...

http://www.androlib....qtFA-tmm.u.aspx

Now when we look at your "small scale model" claim we find you have it all backwards once again.

Photographing a small set requires a having the camera very close to the subject or using a very long lens. The problem..for you..is that both of these options produce the exact opposite in terms of DOF that what we see. In other words if the photo was created as you suggest the chances of that much sharpenss (DOF) over such a large are of the frame are near none.

I was hoping, upon seeing your return, that you might have educated yourself in the subject matter, namely photography. Clearly that is not the csase.

You ascribed a condition to the first as being an artifact of front screen projection that should have shown more area in focus if, in your opinion, the photo had been real. This is totally backwards from reality and shows a decided lack of understanding on your part of the process of Depth of Fieid.

In the second you ascribe the large area of focus as an artifact of shooting a small scale model. On again you get established photographic fact exactly backwards.

This is not a new problem. You have a limited knowlege base as far as general photographic principle is concerned. Don't mean that as a put down, but rather as a proiven statement of fact.

BTW, forum rules require a link to you bio. Yours is missing......

Front screen projection shows a smoother, much less detailed background than photos taken using small scale sets.

Like for instance, the "mountains" in the "distant backgrounds" of the faked Apollo photos.. They all have a much smoother and even lighter appearance than the objects that are seen in the foreground, which are on the actual set.

As a "professional" photographer, I thought that concept would be easy for you to understand.

btw, I preferred your speedboat avatar to you current one... Maybe your pal Evan can bend the rules just for you, so you can put it back.

[Duane Daman]

Duane still has another week to organise the link to his bio.

Duane: if you need any help getting that organised just PM me and I show you how to do it.

Cheers!

I forgot all about needing my bio link .. I'm not even sure if my bio is still on the forum, but I will see if I can find it.

If I need your help, I will let you know.

Thanks.

[Duane Daman]

I see nobody wanted to address this "LRO" photoshopped photo, that was created before NASA created their own photoshopped LRO photos.

It really is amazing what can be faked using Adobe Photoshop.. Not to mention front screen projection, composit imaging and smale scale models.

[Duane Daman]

Craig,

Your pretense of finding everything posted on YouTube as being nonsense, is what is nonsense.

But then you always were good at presenting nonsense, while calling it "empirical evidence".

I don't believe I've ever encounterd anyone before who could blow as much smoke as you do, while pretending to have the maket cornered on all there is to know about photography.

Oh, and speaking of YouTube nonsense, your user name there, "MRphotogod", is quite a hoot!

btw, I know you can take pretty pictures of boats and trucks and stuff, but maybe you should brush up on the type of front screen projection special effects that were used to fake the Apollo photography.. Especially since you obviously know nothing about the subject.

Did I make some claim somewhere where that everything on yt was nonsense? I must have missed that. Perhaps you can share.

What you have not encountered is someone who knows how things work photographically and is willing to show you the errors (as well as those of your ill informed buds). Its also the case that you lack the skillset in the subject and are unable to mount a sucessful counter argument to the truth.

It's really funny you think I have no understading of front projection. I've used it many times. It was all the rage in commercial photography many years ago. You on the other hand have listened to a silly Apollo CT and now you are the expert. Like pretty much all of of your photographic "expertise".

My YT moniker is perfect and did exactly as I planned....your reply here illustrates that perfectly.

Now back to that thorny subject for you..photographic DOF. Can you explain how you got it totally backwards and why we should believe your claims of front projection given this fact?

It's not a thorny subject for me at all.. In fact it's one of my favorite subjects, especially when discussing how much of the Apollo photography was faked using this type of special effects.

Here'a quote from researcher Jay Weidner, that "crazy" guy who's helping to expose the Apollo photo fakery.

DEPTH OF FIELD: MORE EVIDENCE

"Besides the telltale evidence of the horizon line between set and screen and the changing granularity of the texture of the ground, there is another telltale fingerprint that comes with Front Screen Projection. This has to do with a photographic situation called depth of field. Depth of field has to do with the plane of focus that the lens of the camera is tuned to.

The main rule of thumb in photography is that the larger the format of the film the less depth of field. For instance, 16mm film has a large depth of field. 35mm has a smaller depth of field and 70 mm (which Stanley was using in 2001 as were all of the astronaut-photographers in the Apollo missions) has an incredibly small depth of field.

What this means is that it is virtually impossible for two objects that are far apart in the lens of a 70mm camera to be in the same plane of focus. One of the two objects will always be out-of-focus. Filmmakers like to use depth of field because it creates soft out-of-focus backgrounds that are visually very pleasant to the human eye.

While watching the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001, one can see that everything is in focus. Whether it is the apes - or the far away desert background - they are all in focus. This is because the Front Projection Screen on which the background desert scenes is projected is actually not far away from the ape actor. In reality the Scotchlite screen containing the desert scene is right behind the actors just as the Scotchlite screen is right behind the astronauts in the Apollo images. So whatever is projected onto that screen will usually be in the same plane of focus as the actor-ape or the actor-astronaut.

This depth of field is impossible in real life using a large format film like 70 mm. Keeping everything in focus is only possible if everything is actually confined to a small place.

It may look like the ape-men are somewhere in a huge desert landscape but in reality they are all on a small set in a studio.

It may look like the astronauts are on a vast lunar landscape but actually they are on a small confined set.

According to the NASA literature, the Apollo astronauts were using large format Hassleblad cameras. These cameras were provided with large rolls of 70 mm film on which they took the images. This large format film is exactly the same size film that Kubrick was using when shooting 2001.

The plane of focus, the depth of field, on these cameras is incredibly small. This should have been a huge problem for the astronaut-photographers, who would have to be constantly adjusting the focus. We therefore should expect to see a lot of out of focus shots taken by the astronauts. When you consider the fact that, because of their helmets, they did not even have the ability to see through the viewfinder of their cameras, this would have only increased the chances that most of what they would be shooting would be out of focus.

I have gone through the entire photographic record of Apollo program, both at Goddard in Greenbelt, Maryland in the main photographic repository at NASA's Houston headquarters.

When the Apollo photographic record is examined, the exact opposite of what one would expect to find is discovered. Instead of many out of focus shots, we find that nearly every shot is in pristine focus. And these amateur photographer-astronauts have an uncanny sense of composition, especially when one remembers that they are not even able to look through their camera's viewfinders. Their images have the unmistakable quality of a highly polished professional photographer."

[Craig Lamson]

Front screen projection shows a smoother, much less detailed background than photos taken using small scale sets.

Like for instance, the "mountains" in the "distant backgrounds" of the faked Apollo photos.. They all have a much smoother and even lighter appearance than the objects that are seen in the foreground, which are on the actual set.

As a "professional" photographer, I thought that concept would be easy for you to understand.

btw, I preferred your speedboat avatar to you current one... Maybe your pal Evan can bend the rules just for you, so you can put it back.

The person have a tough time with this concept is you, and it is caused by your complete lack of knowlege of the processes we are discussing.Lets break it donw ONCE again. Not for your education mind you but rather for those reading who actually have an open mind and want to learn.

You say "front screen projection shows a smoother, much less detailed background." The question that must be asked is WHY? There is no constraint that fromt projection must show soft detail. The background in a front projection imagfe is ..well...projected. It can just as easliy be sharply focused as it can be in soft focus.

To say just because an image has a 'smoother and less detailed background" that it must be front projection is simply wrong and shows a very decided lack of knowlege about the process.

You got this backwards because its established photographic fact that DOF can also create the exact image seen in your example.

We can go round and round forever, but until you actually have the first clue about the processes involed, your comments will continue to ring hollow. When you have educated yourself in this area of technology, get back to us. Perhaps then we can have an intelligent discussion with you.

[Craig Lamson]

I see nobody wanted to address this "LRO" photoshopped photo, that was created before NASA created their own photoshopped LRO photos.

It really is amazing what can be faked using Adobe Photoshop.. Not to mention front screen projection, composit imaging and smale scale models.

What's to discuss?

[Dave Greer]

I see nobody wanted to address this "LRO" photoshopped photo, that was created before NASA created their own photoshopped LRO photos.

It really is amazing what can be faked using Adobe Photoshop.. Not to mention front screen projection, composit imaging and smale scale models.

There's nothing to address. It was created using a still from the Apollo 15 lift-off footage. I'm still waiting for proof that LRO images were faked, rather than conjecture.

[Craig Lamson]

Thanks for publishing that Duane, why don't we see if this guy gets it correct shall we? Clearly you have a tough time and this guy only tells you PART of the story.

DOF depends on a number of things, format size (he got that aspect correct) Focal length of the lens (he failed that one), working f-stop (failed again), and actual point of focus.

The author tells us that the DOF of a Hasselbald is very thin and thus you can't get lots of things from close to far in focus. I guess this "expert" forgot how hyperfocal works. Why don't we educate him. Lets set three "focus points" like they used on the moon and see what the DOF for each of these setting will produce with a working f-stop of f8 (the middle working f-stop for the lunar photography)

Specs: 6x6 film, 60mm lens, f8

focus point at 7 feet: In focus from 5.8' to 8.83'

focus point at 12 feet: In focus from 8.8' to 18.7'

focus point at 33 feet: In focus from 16.5' to inifinity

Of course focus falls off in a gradual manner from the "in focus" distances. Just like we see in the Apollo photography! Amazing eh?

So tell us Duane, did your quoted expert tell you the whole story and did you have the photographic knowlege to understand if he did?

(online dof calculator)

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Edited September 13, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

I see nobody wanted to address this "LRO" photoshopped photo, that was created before NASA created their own photoshopped LRO photos.

It really is amazing what can be faked using Adobe Photoshop.. Not to mention front screen projection, composit imaging and smale scale models.

There's nothing to address. It was created using a still from the Apollo 15 lift-off footage. I'm still waiting for proof that LRO images were faked, rather than conjecture.

If that faked photo was created from a still of the alleged A15 lift off footage, then NASA could have easily done the same, considering the FACT that all of their LRO photos are processed through Adobe Photoshop.

If NASA actually cared to provide the definitive proof that the Apollo debris is on the Moon, they would have used the same technology they use to image beachball size objects on Mars, instead of presenting lame photos that anyone can easily photoshop.

Even the close up, narrower view of the A12 site, failed to place in the "footpaths" from the "LM" speck to the "Suryeyor" speck.. Yet remembered to place them in the A12 LRO photo, taken from a higher distance above the Moon.

You might not find the LRO photos suspicious, or lacking in proving the Apollo debris is on the Moon, but millions of other people do.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Jack White]

While doing some research for Jim to use in the Burton debate, I made this stunning discovery.

(Sorry it was very large, and the type suffered degraded pixelation because I had to reduce the image;

I will redo it later at a smaller size.)

This is DEFINITE PROOF that NASA falsifies photos. As a judge would say in a court of law, if a

witness is found lying about ONE THING, you may presume that they would lie about other things.

More than 5 years ago, I saved an image WITH A ROCK MISSING UNDER THE ROVER. In 2010, the

IMAGE HAS BEEN CHANGED, and the rock is now there. This is INDISPUTABLE PROOF of malfeasance.

Jack

UPDATE of above study.

[Steve Knight]

NASA's "shrinking" budget has plenty of money for DoD black ops projects though.

And here's me thinking the Military had to pay for Military missions.

Although, I suppose if NASA are using civilian funds for military projects, I guess that's why they don't have enough to also go around disproving every crackpot "theory" about previous missions, eh?

[Craig Lamson]

I contacted Kipp at the Apollo Image Gallery and he went back into his files and found the B/W PRINT he had originally scanned. He made a new scan of the print and sent a crop along to me. He also noted that the scan from this print had been replaced by a much better scan from the original negative which resides on his site now.

IN any case I took this crop and opened it in photoshop, created a duplicate layer and placed the two images side by side. In the un-adjusted image, the see through nature of the wheel is evidenced in the shadow. However a simple curves adjustment later (the values are indicated in the curve dialog box)and the see through shadow effect is gone.

I really wish that people would take the time to actually investigate claims before making them.....

[Jack White]

I consider calling my studies of obvious anomalies CRACKPOT THEORIES an unwarranted personal attack.

Jack

[Mike Tribe]

I consider calling my studies of obvious anomalies CRACKPOT THEORIES an unwarranted personal attack.

Jack

No one mentioned your name, but if the cap fits...

[Craig Lamson]

I consider calling my studies of obvious anomalies CRACKPOT THEORIES an unwarranted personal attack.

Jack

This is an interesting post and I tink it requires some intervention and direction by the mods.

I would think that for example calling Jack White a crackpot would be a personal attack.

However I would think that for example calling a Jack White study crackpot would not be a personal attack.

What is correct?