Image Compositing Used to Fake Apollo Photos

[Craig Lamson]

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?

Boy Duane, when you stick your foot in your mouth you stick it all the way in, don't you?

Thats not the front page, its a query results page. Dave did the hard work for you by asking for THAT IMAGE and he linked to the RESULTS. The high res image has far less processing than what you will find at AIG, and the images at AIG have been resampled and resaved for even further jpg compression. And of course getting an uncompressed and un resampled image to preform testing is the correct way to do things when possible.

Your way, and Jacks, working from highly processed files instead of images closer to the originals is simply mickey mouse club stuff.....

To quote you in a manner of speaking, you really do suck at this....

[John Dolva]

Until agreement on which is best pic I'd like to make this observation. In this image the RGB components have been separated. I don't know how far the earths atmosphere in all layers extend, and the blur factor is important particularly over such a vast distance with a camera. The continents and oceans are not definable. *Red shows least ''diffusion''.

edit typo add*

Edited September 22, 2010 by John Dolva

[Evan Burton]

I also find it amusing that moderator Burton feels the need to abuse his authority here, by comparing Jack's work to that of a monkey.

It's not abuse - it does make as much sense as if a monkey were to play with Photoshop.

If Jack were to post exactly what he did to obtain the final result, then that can be reviewed by someone highly experienced in the use (indeed the actual design) of Photoshop. I have a high degree of confidence that they would agree with my assessment... but if not, I will happily and publicly apologise to Jack for doubting his ability to manipulate images with Photoshop (or whatever he is using).

[Evan Burton]

The "identifier" is clearly stated to be JACK. Burton clearly compares me to a monkey. Plus, I do not use Photoshop, a false assumption.

I compare your "analysis" to that which would be produced by a monkey. I do not compare you to a monkey.

I used Photoshop as an accepted generic term for altering digital images via software.

[John Dolva]

Until agreement on which is best pic I'd like to make this observation. In this image the RGB components have been separated. I don't know how far the earths atmosphere in all layers extend, and the blur factor is important particularly over such a vast distance with a camera. The continents and oceans are not definable. *Red shows least ''diffusion''.

edit typo add*

http://www.pdas.com/atmthick.html

''If you demand that the particle count per cubic meter be indistinguishable from the density of the solar wind in the vicinity of the earth's orbit, you have to go to something like 1000 km.'' (atmosphere thickness)

http://geography.abo...lqzdiameter.htm

''The diameter of the earth at the equator is 12,756.32 kilometers''

ie roughly 1 : 12.75, pole to pole roughly 1 : 12.5

Further there is motion blur to consider. The ''corona'' is not even. During the time of exposure, 1/60th of a second, the relative motion of the moon and earth* could account for this. Overall, with error margins considered, as well as color values being something like one would expect, it seems to me the suggested proof cannot be taken as such. Rather, the image as presented seems to be as expected taking all things into account.

*addendum : ''The Moon orbits the Earth at a speed of about 2288 miles per hour (3683 kilometers per hour)'', further, it rotates as fast as it revolves around the earth. (the dark side of the moon)

ie ~ 1km per second

ie : irrelevant as shutter speed is 1/60 seconds. (16 meters during exposure : a miniscule arc.)

So resolution and camera blur are the factors (?)

Edited September 22, 2010 by John Dolva

[Evan Burton]

The file numbers are on all the studies.

No, they are not. I've demonstrated that in the past.

[Dave Greer]

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?

Err, to make it as easy as possible for anyone on the forum to find the highest resolution version of that image, which is a scan of the film roll itself, without any processing applied? In other words, one that is a close to the original as we're likely to get online?

.. 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?

See above. You haven't ascertained what processing the image from the Project Apollo Image Gallery has been put through. That's why I gave the link to the LPI site that explains how much the catalogue images have been processed. If you don't know what processing has been applied, how can you possibly make judgements about whether "anomalies" are evidence of fakery, or more mundane artefacts that we know exist and are widely documented?

For example, look back at the image you initially thought was obviously faked, but Jack showed was scanner noise (since the same mundane artefacts were visible in the shadow of the crater). Had the Earth been visible in the sky, it's quite plausible that a technician somewhere may have said, "OK, let's make this image look a bit nicer, we'll mask out the Earth, then black out the rest of the sky." You'd then be left with an image that shows a very similar effect to the one seen in the image under discussion.

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?

How can it have been removed from a scan of the original film roll that shows no evidence of tampering, but is visible in a version of the image whose provenance you don't know, but has likely been processed in a similar way to those images on the LPI?

[Evan Burton]

Duane, Jack, Jim and probably others should look at this post:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16637&view=findpost&p=206396

[Dave Greer]

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....

Thanks Craig, I'll try this when I get home.

[Duane Daman]

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?

Boy Duane, when you stick your foot in your mouth you stick it all the way in, don't you?

Thats not the front page, its a query results page. Dave did the hard work for you by asking for THAT IMAGE and he linked to the RESULTS. The high res image has far less processing than what you will find at AIG, and the images at AIG have been resampled and resaved for even further jpg compression. And of course getting an uncompressed and un resampled image to preform testing is the correct way to do things when possible.

Your way, and Jacks, working from highly processed files instead of images closer to the originals is simply mickey mouse club stuff.....

To quote you in a manner of speaking, you really do suck at this....

Craig,

Since that was the first time I ever laid eyes on that web site, how was I suppossed to know Greer didn't link the front page?

And yes, it's true that I pretty much suck at debating .. You see, never took any courses in that subject .. I preferred to study music and psychology instead.

But even though I'm not very good at debating, I am good at researching conspiracies and also the people who protect those conspiracies.. In fact, I did some research on you and found out your true identity.

Of course if you hadn't been so obvious as to what your true character is, I might never have discovered who you really are.

btw, Craig the Dick, have you ever noticed that NOBODY on this forum is very friendly, or even has a sense of humor?

Edited September 22, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

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?

Err, to make it as easy as possible for anyone on the forum to find the highest resolution version of that image, which is a scan of the film roll itself, without any processing applied? In other words, one that is a close to the original as we're likely to get online?

.. 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?

See above. You haven't ascertained what processing the image from the Project Apollo Image Gallery has been put through. That's why I gave the link to the LPI site that explains how much the catalogue images have been processed. If you don't know what processing has been applied, how can you possibly make judgements about whether "anomalies" are evidence of fakery, or more mundane artefacts that we know exist and are widely documented?

For example, look back at the image you initially thought was obviously faked, but Jack showed was scanner noise (since the same mundane artefacts were visible in the shadow of the crater). Had the Earth been visible in the sky, it's quite plausible that a technician somewhere may have said, "OK, let's make this image look a bit nicer, we'll mask out the Earth, then black out the rest of the sky." You'd then be left with an image that shows a very similar effect to the one seen in the image under discussion.

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?

How can it have been removed from a scan of the original film roll that shows no evidence of tampering, but is visible in a version of the image whose provenance you don't know, but has likely been processed in a similar way to those images on the LPI?

Bravo Dave! .. That was a wonderful performance, as usual

The only problem I have with what you and your friends said though, is who am I to believe? .. A team of professional disinformationists or conspiracy researcher Jack White, his study showing a different color square surrounding a composited image of earth, or my own "lying" eyes?

Hmmmmmmm

Tell you what though.. Since you did such a fine job of obscuring the truth once again, I propose that the name of this forum be changed, in honor of your remarkable, hard work.. Instead of the "Education Forum", I suggest we change the name of it to THE OBFUSCATION FORUM.

Yep, that does have a nice ring to it.. Not to mention, it's more appropriate to what really takes place here!

Edited September 22, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

Since that was the first time I ever laid eyes on that web site, how was I suppossed to know Greer didn't link the front page?

Reading should have been your first choice....

[Dave Greer]

Bravo Dave! .. That was a wonderful performance, as usual

The only problem I have with what you and your friends said though, is who am I to believe? .. A team of professional disinformationists or conspiracy researcher Jack White, his study showing a different color square surrounding a composited image of earth, or my own "lying" eyes?

Hmmmmmmm

Tell you what though.. Since you did such a fine job of obscuring the truth once again, I propose that the name of this forum be changed, in honor of your remarkable, hard work.. Instead of the "Education Forum", I suggest we change the name of it to THE OBFUSCATION FORUM.

Yep, that does have a nice ring to it.. Not to mention, it's more appropriate to what really takes place here!

You're not meant to "believe" anyone. You're meant to use critical thinking, and do your own research, to examine any claims made on this or any other forum.

[Craig Lamson]

The only problem I have with what you and your friends said though, is who am I to believe? .. A team of professional disinformationists or conspiracy researcher Jack White, his study showing a different color square surrounding a composited image of earth, or my own "lying" eyes?

Hmmmmmmm

Jack does not have the first clue about what he is doing, mickey mouse comes to mind. You don't have the first clue what it is you are seeing. Yet again mickey mouse comes to mind.

Then there is your problem of "believing". Perhaps you would be better served to actually EDUCATE yourself so you can move on to KNOWING.

[John Dolva]

Until agreement on which is best pic I'd like to make this observation. In this image the RGB components have been separated. I don't know how far the earths atmosphere in all layers extend, and the blur factor is important particularly over such a vast distance with a camera. The continents and oceans are not definable. *Red shows least ''diffusion''.

edit typo add*

http://www.pdas.com/atmthick.html

''If you demand that the particle count per cubic meter be indistinguishable from the density of the solar wind in the vicinity of the earth's orbit, you have to go to something like 1000 km.'' (atmosphere thickness)

http://geography.abo...lqzdiameter.htm

''The diameter of the earth at the equator is 12,756.32 kilometers''

ie roughly 1 : 12.75, pole to pole roughly 1 : 12.5

Further there is motion blur to consider. The ''corona'' is not even. During the time of exposure, 1/60th of a second, the relative motion of the moon and earth* could account for this. Overall, with error margins considered, as well as color values being something like one would expect, it seems to me the suggested proof cannot be taken as such. Rather, the image as presented seems to be as expected taking all things into account.

*addendum : ''The Moon orbits the Earth at a speed of about 2288 miles per hour (3683 kilometers per hour)'', further, it rotates as fast as it revolves around the earth. (the dark side of the moon)

ie ~ 1km per second

ie : irrelevant as shutter speed is 1/60 seconds. (16 meters during exposure : a miniscule arc.)

So resolution and camera blur are the factors (?)

The following should all balance out.

( M to E distance ) / ( E diameter ) = ( C to O distance ) / ( O size )

M = moon

E = earth

C = camera

O = object with apparent same width as E diameter

The bit that has me stumped is what role the camera lens combination has.(it is a q I've been looking for an answer to for some time, I can't get my thinking straight on it, could someone help, please? Perhaps it's irrelevant, perhaps one can treat it as an eye with a single lens. Does one need to know the camera specs)

It seems to me a useful thing to be clear about as it has applications in photo analysis in general such as locating objects on JFK images.