New material on moon fakes coming to Aulis soon

[Kevin M. West]

Duane, if experimenting and posting the results is what you consider 'mind games', I guess that explains why you refuse to actually post anything in support of your arguments.

[Len Colby]

Further, I would not believe anything written by people who cannot spell EMPIRICAL.

By the same logic couldn’t we say that we “would not believe anything written by” a self declared photoanalyst “who cannot” figure out how to post images to this forum even though the simple process has been explained to him several times? What does spelling ability have to do with photoanalysis?

As to the “light bulb” image that you posted at the begining of this thread. David wasn’t able to produce the same effect could you or your friend give a step by step explanation of how the image was manipulated? Hopefully like Dave you will have started with the highest resolution copy available.

[Jack White]

Aulis has TWO NEW PAGES at

http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm

I defy apollogists to explain how THE SAME HASSELBLAD IMAGE

(though with different file numbers) can exist both WITH and WITHOUT

CROSSHAIR reticules, an in-camera feature.

When first released for publicity purposes, the image had NO crosshairs.

Later, when posted on the internet along with all other images, it had

in the interim acquired crosshairs.

Let the insults begin.

Jack

[Dave Greer]

Aulis has TWO NEW PAGES at

http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm

I defy apollogists to explain how THE SAME HASSELBLAD IMAGE

(though with different file numbers) can exist both WITH and WITHOUT

CROSSHAIR reticules, an in-camera feature.

When first released for publicity purposes, the image had NO crosshairs.

Later, when posted on the internet along with all other images, it had

in the interim acquired crosshairs.

Let the insults begin.

Jack

A BEDTIME STORY

by D Greer

I looked at the "study" in question. At least, I think it's the study in question: Jack's description doesn't make much sense. Whatever, I'll look at the first photo (actuall a GIF) in his study.

In the first 30 seconds, I had a puzzled look on my face as I tried to figure out what the alleged anomaly might be.

Then I read the text.

Then I contorted my face a bit more as I tried to get my head round what was being alleged to be an anomaly.

Then I looked at the photographs again, and my jaw dropped slightly.

Then I felt a vein beginning to pulse in the side of brain. It was mildly painful.

Then my left lower eyelid began ticking. My brain was still hurting at this point.

Then my head began twitching slightly from side to side.

Then I shook my head, re-read everything again, and my jaw opened even wider.

Then I felt slightly physically ill.

Then I remembered a scene from the novel "1984". I checked to see whether I could see five fingers or four. I knew I had four fingers, but when I read Jack's post again I thought I might actually see five. Strangely I still saw four fingers.

Then I went into the mountains, pitched a tent, and put a flagpole in the ground in front of the tent. Then I took three photos: one slightly to the left, one in the centre, one slightly to the right. When I looked at the photos, I realised I must have faked them because the flagpole magically appeared to move from left to right, while the mountains appeared to move in the opposite direction.

Then I realised that some people will stop at nothing to convince themselves the moon landings didn't happen. This made me slightly sad.

Then I had a nice hot cup of tea, and I went to bed.

Goodnight.

[Craig Lamson]

Aulis has TWO NEW PAGES at

http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm

I defy apollogists to explain how THE SAME HASSELBLAD IMAGE

(though with different file numbers) can exist both WITH and WITHOUT

CROSSHAIR reticules, an in-camera feature.

When first released for publicity purposes, the image had NO crosshairs.

Later, when posted on the internet along with all other images, it had

in the interim acquired crosshairs.

Let the insults begin.

Jack

This new study at Aulis is the insult...an insult to honest photographers everywhere.

I guess its time to drag out Jay's penguin and put this sillyness to an end.

Oh, you answered your own question, It appears the PUBLICITY image was retouched to remove the crosshairs, which was a common, and perfectly acceptable practice.

[Evan Burton]

Specifically with the "missing crosshairs" image, what was the source?

We can then ask the people who printed that image if they air-brushed out the crosshairs, etc. The original NASA image still has crosshairs, and the page nicely demonstrates how when the horizon is brought to a 'normal' level, the crosshairs distract us from an otherwise pleasing image.

Do you know the source for the top image, Jack? If not, perhaps Duane knows.