NASA has been CAUGHT retouching and switching photos

[Evan Burton]

Matt, Kevin,

Don't give it a second thought. Jack's paranoia and need to hide his mistakes mean he is always making false accusations of people. Just ignore him.

[Len Colby]

What about your false accusation of someone here accusing you of faking the picture?

He is displaying his characteristic confusion once again on the "Discussion and Comments" thread I wrote, "Jack knows better being able to see high resolution uncropped images and knowing the circumstances they were taken. Without knowing the image # there is no way to be sure the images were not altered by Jack or (more likely) the person he got them from." I think that is what he was referring to.

[Duane Daman]

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

Nice find Jack, but we already know that NASA alters it's faked Apollo photos from time to time ..Conspiracy researcher Ralph Rene discovered that fact many years ago when he asked NASA to send him a copy of their "C" rock photo, but they switched the ID numbers, so they could send him a different faked photo instead of the one he asked for.

Then months later, when he finally did receive the correct photo, the "C" has been purposely airbrushed out.

[Dave Greer]

Nice find Jack, but we already know that NASA alters it's faked Apollo photos from time to time ..Conspiracy researcher Ralph Rene discovered that fact many years ago when he asked NASA to send him a copy of their "C" rock photo, but they switched the ID numbers, so they could send him a different faked photo instead of the one he asked for.

Then months later, when he finally did receive the correct photo, the "C" has been purposely airbrushed out.

Aviation Week and Space Technology featured that very image on the front cover of their May 8, 1972 edition (just 11 days after Apollo 16 returned to Earth). No c on rock.

[Duane Daman]

Nice find Jack, but we already know that NASA alters it's faked Apollo photos from time to time ..Conspiracy researcher Ralph Rene discovered that fact many years ago when he asked NASA to send him a copy of their "C" rock photo, but they switched the ID numbers, so they could send him a different faked photo instead of the one he asked for.

Then months later, when he finally did receive the correct photo, the "C" has been purposely airbrushed out.

Aviation Week and Space Technology featured that very image on the front cover of their May 8, 1972 edition (just 11 days after Apollo 16 returned to Earth). No c on rock.

Wel, I'm glad to see that somebody at NASA's quality control knew to airbrush out that "C" for that magazine cover.. I see they managed to airbrush out the matching letter "C" that was on the ground right next to the "C" rock also.

But like I said to Jack earlier, NASA is always correcting their mistakes by altering their faked Apollo photos.

btw, thanks for posting such a large version of that photo .. It just happens to be one of the best examples, showing where the foreground of the set ends and the back wall of the set begins... Those front screen projection special effects really were amazing, considering how new that technology was during the filming of Project Apollo.

[Duane Daman]

As good as that infamous "C" rock photo looks on that magazine cover,I do believe the high res original from the Apollo Imgage Gallery shows off those front screen projection special effects even better.

What is supposedly an expanse of lunar terrain behind Duke and the Rover, is really a projected image on a vertical wall.. Note the lack of definition in the background image, including the lack of rocks.

[John Dolva]

It has been taken by a precicion Hasselblad with a distinkt focal point around about the rover. Near footsteps and features are not in focus. Around the rover they are. For it not to be so in the further (different) terrain shouldnt be surprising. Is there a map of that area?

[Duane Daman]

It has been taken by a precicion Hasselblad with a distinkt focal point around about the rover. Near footsteps and features are not in focus. Around the rover they are. For it not to be so in the further (different) terrain shouldnt be surprising. Is there a map of that area?

Is there a map of the Apollo 16 moonset? .. I kinda doubt it.

This photo was also taken with a Hassie, yet the background in the "distance" didn't lose it's definition, as we can clearly see the tiny rocks on the ground.

Could be the difference between using front screen projection, compared to small scale models, for those "distance" shots.

[John Dolva]

You can't see the moon setting from the moon, (for whatever relevance it has to this matter (?)) . Obviously I mean a map of this area, perhaps a good photo from the orbiter would do.

[Kevin M. West]

It has been taken by a precicion Hasselblad with a distinkt focal point around about the rover. Near footsteps and features are not in focus. Around the rover they are. For it not to be so in the further (different) terrain shouldnt be surprising. Is there a map of that area?

Is there a map of the Apollo 16 moonset? .. I kinda doubt it.

This photo was also taken with a Hassie, yet the background in the "distance" didn't lose it's definition, as we can clearly see the tiny rocks on the ground.

Could be the difference between using front screen projection, compared to small scale models, for those "distance" shots.

Or the difference could simply be distance.

[Craig Lamson]

It has been taken by a precicion Hasselblad with a distinkt focal point around about the rover. Near footsteps and features are not in focus. Around the rover they are. For it not to be so in the further (different) terrain shouldnt be surprising. Is there a map of that area?

Is there a map of the Apollo 16 moonset? .. I kinda doubt it.

This photo was also taken with a Hassie, yet the background in the "distance" didn't lose it's definition, as we can clearly see the tiny rocks on the ground.

Could be the difference between using front screen projection, compared to small scale models, for those "distance" shots.

Or could it be something as simple as the selected focus point and the DOF provided by the working aperture? Given this is you claim why not enlighten us about how this photo 101 subject applies to the photos in question? Specifically, why focus point and working aperture might create the differences seen in the mentioned photos. Inquiring minds really want to know if you understand the concepts you are using in your arguments.

[Duane Daman]

It has been taken by a precicion Hasselblad with a distinkt focal point around about the rover. Near footsteps and features are not in focus. Around the rover they are. For it not to be so in the further (different) terrain shouldnt be surprising. Is there a map of that area?

Is there a map of the Apollo 16 moonset? .. I kinda doubt it.

This photo was also taken with a Hassie, yet the background in the "distance" didn't lose it's definition, as we can clearly see the tiny rocks on the ground.

Could be the difference between using front screen projection, compared to small scale models, for those "distance" shots.

Or the difference could simply be distance.

Or the difference could be image compositing.. That was another trick of the photofakers, when attempting to show "distance" in the faked Apollo photography.

[Duane Daman]

You can't see the moon setting from the moon, (for whatever relevance it has to this matter (?)) . Obviously I mean a map of this area, perhaps a good photo from the orbiter would do.

John,

Here's an orbital view of the Apollo 16 "landing" site .. I believe that arrow is pointing to the imaginary LM sitting on the lunar surface.. You can see it, can't you?

Did you know that NASA has the technology to resolve an image down to the size of a beachball on the Martian surface, plus the technology to image objects as small as cars from satellites above the Earth, yet they've never bothered to use that same image resolving technology to photograph any of the alleged Apollo landing sites?

Strange, huh?

Oh and here's another photo of the Apollo 16 "landing" site.

I believe that white spot is the crater dug by the LM as it touched down on the lunar surface.

Oh, wait a minute .. There were no craters dug under any of the LM's upon touchdown.

Nevermind.

[Craig Lamson]

Or the difference could be image compositing.. That was another trick of the photofakers, when attempting to show "distance" in the faked Apollo photography.

Lets review your recent claims here Duane.

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.photosmith.ca/Library/Depth%20of%20Field%20Wheel.pdf

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

http://www.androlib.com/android.screenshot.app.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.

[Evan Burton]

It has been taken by a precicion Hasselblad with a distinkt focal point around about the rover. Near footsteps and features are not in focus. Around the rover they are. For it not to be so in the further (different) terrain shouldnt be surprising. Is there a map of that area?

Yes indeed, John.

Here is the traverse map for Apollo 16.

If you want more detail, take a look at the Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report (about 54 Mb), or the Geology of the Apollo 16 Landing Area. You can refer to the orbital images for an overview.