Craig Lamson Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Getting back to the topic of strange shadows in the Apollo photos .... I asked Jack to see what he could find in this particular photo , where we have an original nasa image and a superimposed image in this famous photograph .I asked him to analyze the solid black astronot shadows to see if there might be any light in them , or if the shadows ( one allegedly real and the other obviously pasted in ) showed any difference . After he reduced the RGB scales to zero. The sky and shadows remained solid black ,which leads to some interesting observations and questions . If shadow number one is real and shadow number two is fake and there is no difference between them and are IDENTICAL in every respect , then that means that they are either both real or both fake . Since we know for a fact that image and shadow number two were pasted into the photo later and therefore fake , then couldn't this evidence lead to the possibility that BOTH images and shadows are fake ? .. Which would mean that the original Apollo photo of Buzz is a fake . Here is a crop from the high res scan of Buzz. It was simply converted ot grayscale to eliminate clor noise and had a levels adjustement in photoshop to open up the shadow detail. It is pretty clear that the shadows were NOT pure black, there is plenty of detail in`the shadow, INCLUDING a boot print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 30, 2007 Author Share Posted September 30, 2007 Okay , but there is still no difference between the pasted in shadow and the original shadow .. Which leads back to my main point about the Buzz photo and the double image photo , and how all of these photos are so easily faked . Try a high res on this one . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 There is a difference between the pasted shadow and the original one. The one where they are side by side is not the original, it's been altered, jpeg compressed, and reduced in size. How about you provide the ID for that second image so someone can find the high-res version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 30, 2007 Author Share Posted September 30, 2007 AS-12-47-6896HR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 AS-12-47-6896HR Ask yourself this question. What is the difference between an upsun photo and a downsun photo? Answer: about two stops more exposure for an up sun photo. More exposure equals more detail in the blacks...or shadows. Why detail in the upsun phot shadows? More exposure. The A12 image was not given enough exposure to move the shadows beyond the threshold of exposure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 30, 2007 Author Share Posted September 30, 2007 [Ask yourself this question.What is the difference between an upsun photo and a downsun photo? Answer: about two stops more exposure for an up sun photo. More exposure equals more detail in the blacks...or shadows. Why detail in the upsun phot shadows? More exposure. The A12 image was not given enough exposure to move the shadows beyond the threshold of exposure. ALL shadows should contain some light within the shadow , even on the Moon , regardless of the exposure setting . So if I find a downspotlight photo displaying the same solid black shadow properties , will you then think up a different excuse ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 [Ask yourself this question.What is the difference between an upsun photo and a downsun photo? Answer: about two stops more exposure for an up sun photo. More exposure equals more detail in the blacks...or shadows. Why detail in the upsun phot shadows? More exposure. The A12 image was not given enough exposure to move the shadows beyond the threshold of exposure. ALL shadows should contain some light within the shadow , even on the Moon , regardless of the exposure setting . So if I find a downspotlight photo displaying the same solid black shadow properties , will you then think up a different excuse ? This IS a down sun photo. Try again next time. Study up on exposure and then get back to us, as it is you are displaying a distinct lack of knowlege. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 30, 2007 Author Share Posted September 30, 2007 How nicely stated ... See how easy it is to be polite and not use the "I" word ? LOL I will indeed get back to you ... With both UPspotlight and DOWNspotlight photos , both containing solid black shadows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 (edited) How nicely stated ... See how easy it is to be polite and not use the "I" word ? LOL I will indeed get back to you ... With both UPspotlight and DOWNspotlight photos , both containing solid black shadows. Well then let me rephrase, you ignorance of photographic exposure is showing. Edited September 30, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 I don't consider someone being ignorant of a subject to be an insult. Calling someone an ignoramus would be. To say someone is displaying ignorance with respect to something is not an insult. Saying they are deliberately ignorant might be; it is borderline depending on the circumstances. Now, back to the thread: One thing I asked Jack about previously and I'll put to you Duane: use of Photoshop or similar. In a lot of cases I believe that Photoshop (or the particular application) is being misused. Although I have had some experience with Photoshop, I am not an expert in it's use. That is why I asked Jack that if we submitted certain studies by him for analysis by the people who make Photoshop (or at least an equivalent 'expert' group), and they determined that the conclusions drawn were invalid because Photoshop (or equivalent) had been misused or used beyond it capabilities, would he accept that. I now put the same question to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 1, 2007 Author Share Posted October 1, 2007 (edited) I don't know enough about photoshop to know if it's being used incorrectly or not ... So I doubt I would trust the word of someone I don't know , who might have a certain agenda concerning the authenticity of the Apollo photos . If Jack wants to submit some of his studies to be analysed by people he knows and trusts , then that would be entirely up to him . Edited October 1, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 I don't know enough about photoshop to know if it's being used incorrectly or not ... So I doubt I would trust the word of someone I don't know , who might have a certain agenda concerning the authenticity of the Apollo photos .If Jack wants to submit some of his studies to be analysed by people he knows and trusts , then that would be entirely up to him . So what this means is that if someone - Jack for instance - shows you something and then shows a Photoshop-altered image, and says that values mean that this should be such or that both areas should have the same gamma value or whatever.... then you have to accept it on faith that what they are saying is correct, because you lack the specific knowledge to determine for yourself if what they say is valid or not... correct? If the application WAS being used correctly, and the statements made were valid, then an expert in its use could confirm this. If it was NOT being used correctly and the statements made were NOT valid, then an expert in its use could confirm this. Therefore is not the most logical step to find someone who is an expert in its use (the makers, I would suggest), and ask them? Considering that neither of us - and not Jack either - can be considered experts in its use, would that not be the most sensible path in order to resolve the debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 1, 2007 Author Share Posted October 1, 2007 I don't believe for one minute that Jack has "mis-used" photoshop in proving that the Apollo photography was faked . I guess the bottom line is that I trust Jack and I don't trust you , when it comes to this subject . Jack has gotten confirmation from other professionals that his work is valid and that is proof enough for me and millions of other people as well .. The difference between a photograph of real planet, compared to a moonset is obvious ... So obvious that I don't understand why everyone can't see it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 I don't believe for one minute that Jack has "mis-used" photoshop in proving that the Apollo photography was faked .I guess the bottom line is that I trust Jack and I don't trust you , when it comes to this subject . Jack has gotten confirmation from other professionals that his work is valid and that is proof enough for me and millions of other people as well .. The difference between a photograph of real planet, compared to a moonset is obvious ... So obvious that I don't understand why everyone can't see it . The heck with knowing or even learning..all you have to do is believe.... Click your heels three times and you will be back in Kansas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 (edited) I don't believe for one minute that Jack has "mis-used" photoshop in proving that the Apollo photography was faked . And then of course you must have missed his gross miss-use right here on this thread, you know the one where he "enhanced" the image to show there was no detail in the shadows when simply adjusting the levels of the image proved otherwise. He sure snowed you. But hey "you believe" Edited October 1, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now