Craig Lamson Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 Recently someone posted here a photo showing "LRV lunar tracks". I decided to perform computer analysis on it. My analysis is posted on Aulis, and reproduced below: What "pretty" pictures of lens flare Jack! [sarcasm] Great work! [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 UNARGUABLY, all Apollo PANORAMAS relied on ARTISTIC RETOUCHING TO make photos match. By definition, artistic retouching creates FAKED PHOTOS. As a matter of law, retouched photos cannot be introduced into evidence as being genuine. Therefore, NASA FAKED PHOTOS like this. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 Burton ought to concede defeat now. Jim is going to cover COMPUTER ENHANCEMENTS. There will be NO WAY that Burton can argue that photos such as this one are genuine and unretouched original lunar photos. NO WAY! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 Recently someone posted here a photo showing "LRV lunar tracks". I decided to perform computer analysis on it. My analysis is posted on Aulis, and reproduced below: Jack You've detected dust on the lens. Look at the images immediately before and after the image in question. It's part of a pan. The other images show the same feature in the same place relative to the frame of the image. If it was a badly lit backdrop, it would be in the same place relative to the background. http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-117-18813.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-117-18814.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-117-18815.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-117-18816.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-117-18817.jpg AS16-117-18814 (before) AS16-117-18816 (after) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 UNARGUABLY, all Apollo PANORAMAS relied on ARTISTIC RETOUCHING TO make photos match. By definition, artistic retouching creates FAKED PHOTOS. As a matter of law, retouched photos cannot be introduced into evidence as being genuine. Therefore, NASA FAKED PHOTOS like this. Jack This is purely a matter of semantics. If the original images used to create the stitched-together panorama are genuine, it's disingenuous to suggest that the panorama is a "faked photo", which suggests subterfuge. For example, I recently visited Abu Dhabi, and took several photos of the Corniche. I later used software to stitch some of the images together into a panorama. Makes a neat desktop image. Using your definition, I created a faked photo - but it was created from originals. You can call my panorama a fake, but that doesn't mean the individual images it was composed from are fakes. From a hoax point of view, it only makes sense to analyse images which are purported to be single Hasselblad images, with a reference number. Stitched panoramas are visually impressive, but should not be used for analytical purposes for various reasons. Analysis should only be done on the original images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 Burton ought to concede defeat now. Jim is going to cover COMPUTER ENHANCEMENTS. There will be NO WAY that Burton can argue that photos such as this one are genuine and unretouched original lunar photos. NO WAY! Jack Computer enhancement tells you that there was a lot a scanner noise on that image. Someone thought the image would look nicer if the scanner noise was blacked out. Take a look at a copy of the image I found at this website - ftp://nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov/miscellaneous/planetary/apollo/as11_40_5863.jpg If you zoom in on the image you can see what appears to be scanner noise over the whole image. Here's a crop to show what I mean. It looks like someone had a copy of this image (or similar), didn't like the scanner noise in the sky, so cropped most of it out to make the sky look black. No great mystery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 Then you guys admit that these are not genuine photos, but have been altered by retouching? In law, retouched photos are not admissible as evidence. They are considered fake. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 Here is another computer enhancement (subtraction of most colors). Maybe Mr. Light can tell us why the darkest area of the scene is the best lighted. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 Then you guys admit that these are not genuine photos, but have been altered by retouching? In law, retouched photos are not admissible as evidence. They are considered fake. Jack Are you looking at the images as contained in the original trans and negatives? Of course not. You are looking at publication copies. In all of your years as a "ad guy" did you never retouch or otherwise alter an image for better results for publication? Change the exposure or contrast? (like your alteration of the Moorman to produce the fantasy you call badgeman) Get real. If this is the best you have you lose.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 Here is another computer enhancement (subtraction of most colors). Maybe Mr. Light can tell us why the darkest area of the scene is the best lighted. Jack Sure Jack....its called reflected light...from the surface. The telltale signs anyone with a photo lighting 101 level of knowlege can see. Just look at the long broad highlights on the ladder rungs, showing a HUGE reflector at ground level. Notice the position the highlights on the end buttons of the ladder rungs. They show the same. Notice the lighting direction and light quality on the astronaut and hatch area...again the same source. Shall we go on our will you do the correct thing and concede the point since you have it wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Then you guys admit that these are not genuine photos, but have been altered by retouching? In law, retouched photos are not admissible as evidence. They are considered fake. Jack Like I said, a purely semantic argument at best , borderline disingenuous at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Then you guys admit that these are not genuine photos, but have been altered by retouching? In law, retouched photos are not admissible as evidence. They are considered fake. Jack Like I said, a purely semantic argument at best , borderline disingenuous at worst. Well, at least you're right about one thing. "Jack, you've detected dust on the lens", would have to be one of the most disingenuous claims you've ever made, Dave. Neither you or Lamson seem to be able to tap dance around the faked Apollo photos as fast as you used to. But then that does comes with age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Then you guys admit that these are not genuine photos, but have been altered by retouching? In law, retouched photos are not admissible as evidence. They are considered fake. Jack Like I said, a purely semantic argument at best , borderline disingenuous at worst. Well, at least you're right about one thing. "Jack, you've detected dust on the lens", would have to be one of the most disingenuous claims you've ever made, Dave. Neither you or Lamson seem to be able to tap dance around the faked Apollo photos as fast as you used to. But then that does comes with age. Dave got it exactly right. I demo'ed that exact thing here on this forum a few years ago. You could not refute it then, just like now. All you have is smacktalk and not a single piece of empirical evidence in sight. Clearly nothing has changed with Duane Daman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 14, 2010 Author Share Posted September 14, 2010 Jim, You have made repeated personal attacks on members. These are to cease or the moderating team will consider disciplinary action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 14, 2010 Author Share Posted September 14, 2010 Duane, Your remarks regarding Craig's personal life, whether true or not, are way over the line. One warning and one warning only - debate in a civil tone or you'll be placed on moderation. 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