Craig Lamson Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Plus, I do not use Photoshop, a false assumption. Jack You don't do "analysis" either. Yoiu don't have clue one about how ANY of this stuff works. I'm guessing that monkeys don't understand either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 21, 2010 Author Share Posted September 21, 2010 "Whats the frigging # of the image in the earth image study thingy" That photo can be found here. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20471HR.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Thank you Duane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 21, 2010 Author Share Posted September 21, 2010 Thank you Duane. No problem John .. I would have posted a reply to you much sooner, but unfortunately my computer was hacked as I was trying to submit my post, and it took me all this time to get back online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Jack is making as much "analysis" as a monkey in front of the Photoshop keyboard would. The "identifier" is clearly stated to be JACK. Burton clearly compares me to a monkey. Plus, I do not use Photoshop, a false assumption. Jack Lets see how good you are Jack. Download the image found here: http://www.craiglamson.com/imagetest.html It is saved as a lossless PNG. Do your "computer analysis" and show us the results. DO NOT resize the image. DO NOT save it as a JPG. Save your work as a full sized png and post crops here for us to see. RGB tones used: 0,0,0 128,128,128 0,0,150 255,255,255 Throw everything at it you have, as long as you don't resize or resave as a jpg. SHow us your stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Actually it's not that one, it's the lower resolution version in Jack's study: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20471.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer 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 Jack What is the URL that Duane downloaded this image from? For example, if he downloaded it from the LPI, then it should not be used for scientific analysis. Taken from their own website:- Scanning And Image Processing Background Information on the Production of the Images used in the Apollo (Handheld/Still) Imagery Catalog This catalog was created using a set of images received from the NASA Johnson Space Center. The images were created as follows: The Apollo film was scanned using a video camera, with a resolution of over 700 lines, to create a digital file. Each frame was digitized as a 24 bit color image at 756 x 486 pixels, producing a file of approximately 1.1 megabytes in Targa format. The Targa images were then processed to produce a 640 x 480 image at 72 ppi in JPEG (JPG) format. These images were also (significantly) compressed, reducing the final file size to about 40 kilobytes on average. These images were further processed by the LPI as follows: They were cropped to match the original proportions of the image on the original film. This also had the effect of removing some of the curved edges introduced in the original scanning process. The images then received some "color" processing. This was done because the aging of the film had altered the original colors captured when the film was exposed. In the case of the images on black and white film, the "color shifting" was removed by grayscaling the images. For the images on color film, a generic color processing formula, arrived at by tweaking representative images by hand, was applied in an attempt to shift them back closer to their original colors. The resulting images were then saved again in JPEG format, with a small amount of compression, at 450 x 450 pixels to create the browse images and at 120 x 120 pixels to create the thumbnail images used in the catalog. Because of all this processing, these catalog images should not be used for research purposes. They should only be used to select and identify images for use in a research project. Higher resolution products should be obtained for use in any scientific investigation(s). Source It looks as if the image you've used is one that suffered from a certain amount of scanner noise, so the sky was blacked out (except for the Earth of course) If the image was obtained from a different site, have you contacted them to find out the exact provenance of the image, as detailed above for the LPI catalogue images? Why don't you try doing the same analysis on a high resolution scan of the film roll itself, which you can download from the Gateway to Astronaut photography of Earth (the click on request). Since these images are scans taken directly from the film roll itself, without any post-processing applied. There is no cropping. You can see scanner noise in the sky (which is to be expected). I did, and there is no evidence that the Earth was "pasted in". If, as you insist, it was pasted in, then you need to admire the attention to detail of NASAs team of photo fakers. When they pasted the Earth in on the next but one image, AS17-134-20473, they cunningly blurred it in exactly the same way the rest of the image is blurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 It looks as if the image you've used is one that suffered from a certain amount of scanner noise, so the sky was blacked out (except for the Earth of course) Heres an interesting fact Dave. The sky is not "blacked in" at least not in the normal sense of taking a paint brush or other tool and painting it black. Try this. Take an image from gateway, and adjust tbe levels or curves to make it look like the same image at AIG. If you do this the scanner noise in the sky goes away. It gets nice and black. With this adjusted image we KNOW there was no retouching to make the sky black. Now take this image, which is approx 4000+ pixels square and reduce the size to approx 2400 pixels, the size of the high res images at AIG. Save this file as a jpg at level 5 or 6. Now if you take this image and do a levels "enhancement" ...low and behold, you find what Jack and Duane call indications of retouching! However all you have found is the artifacts left by the size reduction and the jpg compression save. Nothing sinister, nothing to hide, just the results of image processing. What we DID find however is that the "alterationists" like Duane and Jack don't have the first clue what it is they think they are doing. But really, most of us already knew that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 21, 2010 Author Share Posted September 21, 2010 Kevin, Actually it was this high resolution photo I sent to Jack, not the lower resolution pic. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20471HR.jpg Dave, What difference does it make where the high res version of the photo comes from? .. Unless of course NASA has been very careful to clean up their act on the site you linked. The link you copied from states .."Higher resolution products should be obtained for use in any scientific investigation(s)." Funny how that's worded .. It sounds as if NASA is expecting scientific investigations of their Apollo photos, and has made sure any anomalies in them have been taken care of. And of course it comes as no surprise that your unseen study didn't show the pasted in image of "earth" in the sky.. I wouldn't expect any less from someone who will do whatever it takes to "win" the game, or suppress the truth about the faked Apollo photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 (edited) 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 Jack, you were asked to detail the exact process for your "enhancements" so everyone could check your work. When can we expect this detailed workflow process? After all this is what happens when "GOOD" science and research is being done. You ARE doing good science..right? Please prove it. GTHMLJWDYTYA Edited September 22, 2010 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 he said as a monkey. I looked rather perfunctorily for the identifier and couldn't find it. I'm interested but it should really have a format of debate so that the lowest common denominator can function for those peripherally interested in these hoax notions. Comparing MY work to that of a monkey contains NO IDENTIFIER? Jack Excuse me. he said as a monkey ___________ re image : I looked rather perfunctorily for the identifier and couldn't find it. I'm interested but it should really have a format of debate so that the lowest common denominator can function for those peripherally interested in these hoax notions. Jack is making as much "analysis" as a monkey in front of the Photoshop keyboard would. The "identifier" is clearly stated to be JACK. Burton clearly compares me to a monkey. Plus, I do not use Photoshop, a false assumption. Jack omg.. forget about the bloody monkey. Whats the frigging # of the image in the earth image study thingy? The file numbers are on all the studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 Actually it's not that one, it's the lower resolution version in Jack's study: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20471.jpg All the images Duane sent to me for analysis were from the Project Apollo Image Gallery, and as I recall were all high resolution. It makes little difference, since both have to be reduced to screen size for use. The same results are obtained with both resolutions. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 Actually it's not that one, it's the lower resolution version in Jack's study: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20471.jpg It was high resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 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 Jack, you were asked to detail the exact process for your "enhancements" so everyone could check your work. When can we expect this detailed workflow process? After all this is what happens when "GOOD" science and research is being done. You ARE doing good science..right? Please prove it. GTHML Translation please, followed by your exact workflow.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 22, 2010 Author Share Posted September 22, 2010 Actually it's not that one, it's the lower resolution version in Jack's study: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20471.jpg It was high resolution. Jack, I find it very interesting that the link Greer suggested you use has the photo we're discussng on it's FRONT PAGE!! http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=AS17&roll=134&frame=20471&QueryResultsFile=128509846922522.tsv Gee, I wonder why that would be? .. I also wonder why Greer wants you to use that high res photo, instead of the high res photo I sent you, from the Project Apollo Image Gallery? But then NASA states on Greer's pick that .."Higher resolution products should be obtained for use in any scientific investigation(s)." I'm sure if you analyzed this high res photo instead, the evidence of image compositing of the "earth" has been very carefully removed. What you wanna bet? 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