John Dolva Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 fair enuff, opinion, ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 20, 2010 Author Share Posted September 20, 2010 fair enuff, opinion, ok. Right .. opinion. According to Wiki, which of course is NOT fact, 6% of the world's population believe the Moon landings were faked.. I've read that the number of skeptics of the publicly shown Apollo Program, are actually closer to 25%. It was Hitler's opinion that the Apollo Moon landings were faked.. His SS officers obviously disagreed with him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 Last week Duane sent me several Apollo images and asked that I do computer analysis to bring out what is in the blackness of the sky. I am glad Duane sent them. Today I decided to analyze one, and lo and behold this photo is a composite! The COMPUTER, subtracting hues from black in slow increments, clearly show that the image of the earth had been pasted in the host photo sky, because THE SHADE OF BLACK WAS LIGHTER. The computer did this without any help from me! Thanks, Duane! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 20, 2010 Author Share Posted September 20, 2010 (edited) Last week Duane sent me several Apollo images and asked that I do computer analysis to bring out what is in the blackness of the sky. I am glad Duane sent them. Today I decided to analyze one, and lo and behold this photo is a composite! The COMPUTER, subtracting hues from black in slow increments, clearly show that the image of the earth had been pasted in the host photo sky, because THE SHADE OF BLACK WAS LIGHTER. The computer did this without any help from me! Thanks, Duane! Jack Awesome find Jack! .. You found exactly what I thought you would .. "Earth" pasted into the "lunar" sky. Looks like the "astronaut" is a composited image as well. I'm glad we're finally back on topic.. Thanks for posting this. Edited September 20, 2010 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 21, 2010 Author Share Posted September 21, 2010 (edited) I thought by now "MRphotogod" would have dashed in here with his typical damage control. Will his "rebuttal" be "compression artifacts", or "scanner noise", or "the photo was touched up for artistic purposes", or perhaps "dust on the len"? .. No wait, that's Dave's favorite excuse.. Or maybe West will pop in here with one of his famous one liners saying "it's a digital scan, not an original, so it doesn't count." Then maybe Dave will do his own study, which will of course have a different outcome from Jack's study.. Just like he did with the last composited Apollo 17 fake photo.. Anything it takes to "win", right Dave? It trully amazes me how most people actually buy the nonsense you guys sell .. but then when it comes to the evidence that proves the Apollo photography was faked, most people really are in a complete state of denial. Edited September 21, 2010 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 I thought by now "MRphotogod" would have dashed in here with his typical damage control. Will his "rebuttal" be "compression artifacts", or "scanner noise", or "the photo was touched up for artistic purposes", or perhaps "dust on the len"? .. No wait, that's Dave's favorite excuse.. Or maybe West will pop in here with one of his famous one liners saying "it's a digital scan, not an original, so it doesn't count." Then maybe Dave will do his own study, which will of course have a different outcome from Jack's study.. Just like he did with the last composited Apollo 17 fake photo.. Anything it takes to "win", right Dave? It trully amazes me how most people actually buy the nonsense you guys sell .. but then when it comes to the evidence that proves the Apollo photography was faked, most people really are in a complete state of denial. Duane...lay off these poor guys...they will be sorry soon enough that they stirred up Jim, me and you. I am on a roll, now that I have learned how to streamline the computer enhancement. I can do them at the rate of about 5 an hour...and there are hundreds of black skys with hidden artifacts. Burton has stirred up a hornet nest. I can do dozens of new ones every day, but will not bother unless necessary. I think I have proved my point. Here is one my computer did just minutes ago, to be followed by another in a few minutes. This first one shows that even though the studio ceiling was painted BLACK, the black was able to reflect enough ambient light to reveal a shadow of the LM from below. Show compassion for the flabbergasted! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 This is so much fun it is addictive...but I had better take a break, I have other things to do. On this one, the paste-in was oval, not rectangular...and they included 3 small EM SQUARES for registration position. They can be seen best on the enlargements at right. How many of these should I do? There may be hundreds! Again...The computer does all the work. All I do is subtract colors. However, below I inverted it into a negative because the colors show things better...for instance the orange retouched area at left. Note the retouching along the top of the LM. Thanks, Duane, for asking me to do these. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 21, 2010 Author Share Posted September 21, 2010 This is so much fun it is addictive...but I had better take a break, I have other things to do. On this one, the paste-in was oval, not rectangular...and they included 3 small EM SQUARES for registration position. They can be seen best on the enlargements at right. How many of these should I do? There may be hundreds! Again...The computer does all the work. All I do is subtract colors. However, below I inverted it into a negative because the colors show things better...for instance the orange retouched area at left. Note the retouching along the top of the LM. Thanks, Duane, for asking me to do these. Jack Very interesting findings, Jack.. Keep 'em coming! Oh, and enjoy the fun while it lasts .. I'm sure it won't be long before Lamson, etc. charges in here to try and ruin it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Duane...I was just disappointed by doing another of the flag-earth-astronaut series, and it was perfectly smooth. The black sky showed no variation, being such a dense black that few colors could be extracted. There were no paste-on lines around the earth, and everything seemed "normal". Maybe NASA is perfecting the images against computer enhancement. However, all the OLD images I saved should be untampered. Were the images you sent to me NEW SAVES or OLD SAVES? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Last week Duane sent me several Apollo images and asked that I do computer analysis to bring out what is in the blackness of the sky. I am glad Duane sent them. Today I decided to analyze one, and lo and behold this photo is a composite! The COMPUTER, subtracting hues from black in slow increments, clearly show that the image of the earth had been pasted in the host photo sky, because THE SHADE OF BLACK WAS LIGHTER. The computer did this without any help from me! Thanks, Duane! Jack Once again , just JPG compression. You need to study up on digital imaging Jack.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Last week Duane sent me several Apollo images and asked that I do computer analysis to bring out what is in the blackness of the sky. I am glad Duane sent them. Today I decided to analyze one, and lo and behold this photo is a composite! The COMPUTER, subtracting hues from black in slow increments, clearly show that the image of the earth had been pasted in the host photo sky, because THE SHADE OF BLACK WAS LIGHTER. The computer did this without any help from me! Thanks, Duane! Jack Awesome find Jack! .. You found exactly what I thought you would .. "Earth" pasted into the "lunar" sky. Looks like the "astronaut" is a composited image as well. I'm glad we're finally back on topic.. Thanks for posting this. JPG compression once again Duane. Like Jack you need to study up on this digital imaging thing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 I thought by now "MRphotogod" would have dashed in here with his typical damage control. Will his "rebuttal" be "compression artifacts", or "scanner noise", or "the photo was touched up for artistic purposes", or perhaps "dust on the len"? .. No wait, that's Dave's favorite excuse.. Or maybe West will pop in here with one of his famous one liners saying "it's a digital scan, not an original, so it doesn't count." Then maybe Dave will do his own study, which will of course have a different outcome from Jack's study.. Just like he did with the last composited Apollo 17 fake photo.. Anything it takes to "win", right Dave? It trully amazes me how most people actually buy the nonsense you guys sell .. but then when it comes to the evidence that proves the Apollo photography was faked, most people really are in a complete state of denial. What nonsense? The the fact the simpe JPG COMPRZESSION can cause the artifacts seen in these images? COme on Duane get with the REALIty program for a change instead of the FRANTASY PROGRAM.... But please guys, keep posting this stuff. It just add to the growing mountain of evidence that proves the total lack of a "clue" amoung apollo photo alterationists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 21, 2010 Author Share Posted September 21, 2010 Duane...I was just disappointed by doing another of the flag-earth-astronaut series, and it was perfectly smooth. The black sky showed no variation, being such a dense black that few colors could be extracted. There were no paste-on lines around the earth, and everything seemed "normal". Maybe NASA is perfecting the images against computer enhancement. However, all the OLD images I saved should be untampered. Were the images you sent to me NEW SAVES or OLD SAVES? Jack Considering the fact that NASA continues to alter their Apollo photos, I'm not surprised that some of them seemed "normal". I got them from The Apollo Image Gallery, so I don't know if they're old or new. What other web site sources are available for those same photos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 I thought by now "MRphotogod" would have dashed in here with his typical damage control. Will his "rebuttal" be "compression artifacts", or "scanner noise", or "the photo was touched up for artistic purposes", or perhaps "dust on the len"? .. No wait, that's Dave's favorite excuse.. Or maybe West will pop in here with one of his famous one liners saying "it's a digital scan, not an original, so it doesn't count." Then maybe Dave will do his own study, which will of course have a different outcome from Jack's study.. Just like he did with the last composited Apollo 17 fake photo.. Anything it takes to "win", right Dave? It trully amazes me how most people actually buy the nonsense you guys sell .. but then when it comes to the evidence that proves the Apollo photography was faked, most people really are in a complete state of denial. Duane...lay off these poor guys...they will be sorry soon enough that they stirred up Jim, me and you. I am on a roll, now that I have learned how to streamline the computer enhancement. I can do them at the rate of about 5 an hour...and there are hundreds of black skys with hidden artifacts. Burton has stirred up a hornet nest. I can do dozens of new ones every day, but will not bother unless necessary. I think I have proved my point. Here is one my computer did just minutes ago, to be followed by another in a few minutes. This first one shows that even though the studio ceiling was painted BLACK, the black was able to reflect enough ambient light to reveal a shadow of the LM from below. Show compassion for the flabbergasted! Jack Oh yes you really ARE on a roll...right out the door! When the time is reing and you have posted your so called evidence inthe debate thread, it will be so much fun to blow your "theory" right out of the water! I almost cant't wait...but I will.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 (edited) Very interesting findings, Jack.. Keep 'em coming! Oh, and enjoy the fun while it lasts .. I'm sure it won't be long before Lamson, etc. charges in here to try and ruin it.. Oh Duane, I'm not going to TRY to ruin anything, I'm going to blow the entire lid off of this "enhancement game" Edited September 21, 2010 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