NASA has been CAUGHT retouching and switching photos

[Duane Daman]

I can't believe you think the LRO photos are adequate in showing the alleged Apollo debris on the Moon.. They are not only inadequate, but a ridiculous insult to everyone's intelligence.

I'm glad you posted the Apollo 12 "landing site" photo, since that's the one I wanted to discuss next.

In this case, it really does look like NASA saved their biggest joke for last.

Where is the Surveyor? .. Where are the "footpaths" leading up to the Surveyor? .. And more importantly, where is that "huge crator" that the Surveyor was suppossedly hanging off of, that was allegedly located 600 feet away from where Al and Pete landed the A12 lunar module?

You asked what it would take for me to accept that the LRO photos really show Apollo debris on the Moon?

How about recognizable objects that don't look like blurry white photoshopped blobs.

Since NASA has the technology to image cars on Earth and beachball sized objects on Mars, then why not put the Apollo Hoax debate to rest and use that same technology to image the Apollo objects they claim are on the Moon?

[Kevin M. West]

I can't believe you think the LRO photos are adequate in showing the alleged Apollo debris on the Moon.. They are not only inadequate, but a ridiculous insult to everyone's intelligence.

I'm glad you posted the Apollo 12 "landing site" photo, since that's the one I wanted to discuss next.

In this case, it really does look like NASA saved their biggest joke for last.

Where is the Surveyor? .. Where are the "footpaths" leading up to the Surveyor? .. And more importantly, where is that "huge crator" that the Surveyor was suppossedly hanging off of, that was allegedly located 600 feet away from where Al and Pete landed the A12 lunar module?

You asked what it would take for me to accept that the LRO photos really show Apollo debris on the Moon?

How about recognizable objects that don't look like blurry white photoshopped blobs.

Since NASA has the technology to image cars on Earth and beachball sized objects on Mars, then why not put the Apollo Hoax debate to rest and use that same technology to image the Apollo objects they claim are on the Moon?

In that image? The crater and Surveyor 3 are out of frame to the lower right. See the 50m scale? 600 feet is 3.65 times that distance.

Try a wider view:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_20090903_apollo12.html

[Duane Daman]

Thanks so much for the utube nonsense Duane. The presenter is woefully unprepared to discuss the effects of DOF in photography. And it quite easy to see how you have allowed yourself to be mislead.

Spend some time doing some actual DOF calculations and learn something concrete instead.

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.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

I can't believe you think the LRO photos are adequate in showing the alleged Apollo debris on the Moon.. They are not only inadequate, but a ridiculous insult to everyone's intelligence.

I'm glad you posted the Apollo 12 "landing site" photo, since that's the one I wanted to discuss next.

In this case, it really does look like NASA saved their biggest joke for last.

Where is the Surveyor? .. Where are the "footpaths" leading up to the Surveyor? .. And more importantly, where is that "huge crator" that the Surveyor was suppossedly hanging off of, that was allegedly located 600 feet away from where Al and Pete landed the A12 lunar module?

You asked what it would take for me to accept that the LRO photos really show Apollo debris on the Moon?

How about recognizable objects that don't look like blurry white photoshopped blobs.

Since NASA has the technology to image cars on Earth and beachball sized objects on Mars, then why not put the Apollo Hoax debate to rest and use that same technology to image the Apollo objects they claim are on the Moon?

In that image? The crater and Surveyor 3 are out of frame to the lower right. See the 50m scale? 600 feet is 3.65 times that distance.

Try a wider view:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_20090903_apollo12.html

The wider view is a bigger joke than the narrower view.

I see the "footpaths" leading away from the "LM" speck, to the "Surveyor" speck, in the wider view, but don't see them in the narrower view.

But then NASA never was very consistent when faking, or in this case, photoshopping, their phony Apollo photos.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

The wider view is a bigger joke than the narrower view.

I see the "footpaths" leading away from the "LM" speck, to the "Surveyor" speck, in the wider view, but don't see them in the narrower view.

But then NASA never was very consistent when faking, or in this case, photoshopping, their phony Apollo photos.

The sun angle in the second image is different to the first. It's almost directly above, which makes it virtually impossible to see shadows. It also affects contrast and the way differences in albedo. are represented. You can see this in many LRO images, including ones that don't include Apollo hardware.

[Evan Burton]

Correct Dave. It's a basic of photo interpretation.

SHADOW

Geologists like low sun angle photography because of the features that shadow patterns can help identify (e.g. fault lines and fracture patterns). Church steeples and smokestacks can cast shadows that can facilitate their identification. Tree identification can be aided by an examination of the shadows thrown. Shadows can also inhibit interpretation. On infrared aerial photography shadows are typically very black and can render targets in shadows uninterpretable.

Example of how shadow aids identification

Source: http://rscc.umn.edu/rscc/v1m2.html

[Craig Lamson]

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?

Edited September 11, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Steve Knight]

NASA has the technology to resolve and image down to the size of a beachball on the Martian surface, from Mars orbit, yet refuses to use this same technology to image the alleged Apollo landing sites on the Moon.

They don't refuse to, it's a matter of funding, and specific missions. I'm going to go out on a limb and say designing, developing, creating and launching one mission specifically for this purpose of debunking HB's, who won't even choose to examine its data with an open mind isn't going to be very high on their list of priorities.

The recent LRO had a camera, but it's optical resolution wasn't that good - trade-offs between weight and size, and other science packages included. It was, however, good enough to resolve down to objects of around a couple of meters, when it reached its optimal orbital height, as has been linked to for you in this thread.

Could we ask for better resolutions? Probably, but as long as other space is needed for multiple science experiments, it's unlikely we'll get them. What we did get, though, is good enough for anyone with an inquiring and open mind.

It's fairly funny, too, to be asked why they can't use HST to image the landing sites. After all, it regularly images distant nebulae and galaxies. (IIRC, the smallest object it can resolve on the moon is around 30metres). And that's by far, better than anything we have on Earth. It will take a specific mission to do what you suggest, and they have other priorities, and a shrinking budget to do them with.

[Duane Daman]

NASA has the technology to resolve and image down to the size of a beachball on the Martian surface, from Mars orbit, yet refuses to use this same technology to image the alleged Apollo landing sites on the Moon.

They don't refuse to, it's a matter of funding, and specific missions. I'm going to go out on a limb and say designing, developing, creating and launching one mission specifically for this purpose of debunking HB's, who won't even choose to examine its data with an open mind isn't going to be very high on their list of priorities.

The recent LRO had a camera, but it's optical resolution wasn't that good - trade-offs between weight and size, and other science packages included. It was, however, good enough to resolve down to objects of around a couple of meters, when it reached its optimal orbital height, as has been linked to for you in this thread.

Could we ask for better resolutions? Probably, but as long as other space is needed for multiple science experiments, it's unlikely we'll get them. What we did get, though, is good enough for anyone with an inquiring and open mind.

It's fairly funny, too, to be asked why they can't use HST to image the landing sites. After all, it regularly images distant nebulae and galaxies. (IIRC, the smallest object it can resolve on the moon is around 30metres). And that's by far, better than anything we have on Earth. It will take a specific mission to do what you suggest, and they have other priorities, and a shrinking budget to do them with.

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

So I guess proving to millions of people, who have no doubt Apollo was some type of fraud, really isn't all that important to those who can pull off a stunt like pretending to send 24 humans to the Moon 40 years ago, using primitive, conventional technology, when that feat can't even be accomplished today using state of the art, computerized conventional tech.

Getting back to NASA's photoshopped LRO photos, here's an example of a "LRO" photo that was created BEFORE NASA created their photoshopped LRO photos.

This only goes to show how easy it is for NASA to fake yet more "Apollo" photos for the clueless masses.

"That fascinating picture is the work of one of my image mage friends on unmannedspaceflight.com, AndyG. Andy (who gave me permission to use the image here, thanks Andy! ) very cleverly simulated LRO’s view of the Apollo 15 landing site by taking a frame from the 16mm camera’s footage of the Apollo 15 ascent module and giving it the same resolution as LRO’s camera, approx 15cm per pixel. Even at that resolution you can clearly see the boxy descent stage, its four legs, and dark trails on the surface where the light lunar dust was disturbed by the astronauts. How stunning is that?!? If LRO returns an image like that of Tranquility Base I might actually shed a tear…"

http://cumbriansky.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/lro-and-the-apollo-hoax-believers/

Yeah, I might shed a tear too, but not for the same reason this guy would.. Mine would be because NASA not only simulated their 16 mm Apollo 15 "landing" footage ( to pass off as the real deal ) but has yet again gotten away with faking even more photos.

What's so funny ( or not ) though, is that this guy's photoshopped "LRO" photo shows more detail than NASA's LRO fakes.

[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?

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.

[Craig Lamson]

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......

[Dave Greer]

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.

Duane

Have you got any proof to support your assertions? I'm sure that like me you've seen many photos taken on Earth that show the same kind of features you've mentioned here, but that doesn't mean those images were faked using front screen projection, or small scale set models.

Here's an example.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Joshua_tree_keys_view_pano_more_vertical.jpg

If you think that image is faked, you could go out and take photographs yourself that show the same features that you say were created using front projection, or small scale model sets. What specifically is it about the Apollo images that proves they must have been faked in the way you claim?

[Evan Burton]

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!

[Craig Lamson]

If you think that image is faked, you could go out and take photographs yourself that show the same features that you say were created using front projection, or small scale model sets. What specifically is it about the Apollo images that proves they must have been faked in the way you claim?

The problem Duane might have in doing this is that he does not understand Depth of Focus (or Depth of Field).

Ths actual size of the sensor or film plays a big part in DOF. The larger the film or sensor, the less DOF wil be produced for a given f-stop. For example the film used in the Apollo cameras has a 60mm x60mm image area. A full frame 35 mm camera has a 24mm x 36mm image area. Your average digital point and shoot camera might have only a 5mm x 4mm sensor. Aat a given f-stop and the same framing for each of these camera sizes, the PS at say f8 will produce massive DOF while the Hasselblad will produce very shallow DOF. So its very hard to do comparisons without using the same equipment. Or you can consutt a DOF calculator and just do the math.

I don't expect Duane will do either. It's not a YT video....

This link explains it pretty well in laymans terms.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

[Duane Daman]

The wider view is a bigger joke than the narrower view.

I see the "footpaths" leading away from the "LM" speck, to the "Surveyor" speck, in the wider view, but don't see them in the narrower view.

But then NASA never was very consistent when faking, or in this case, photoshopping, their phony Apollo photos.

The sun angle in the second image is different to the first. It's almost directly above, which makes it virtually impossible to see shadows. It also affects contrast and the way differences in albedo. are represented. You can see this in many LRO images, including ones that don't include Apollo hardware.

Dave,

You must have missed my point .. In the enlarged, narrower view photo ( number one) of the A12 "landing" site, the "footpaths" can be seen leading from the "LM" to the "experiments", yet the "footpaths" to the "Surveyor" are missing.

The "footpaths" in the wider view photo ( number 2 ) can be seen going to both the "experiments" and to the "Surveyor".

So why would only some of the "footpaths" be missing in the first photo? .. This has nothing to do with the Sun angle difference between the two photos.

I find it strange that only some of the "footpaths" are missing in one that photo, considering it has only one Sun angle.