Duane Daman Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Apollo-gist / Virtual Apollo Part Four Here is the LEM, a picture supposedly shot from the Command module after separation in lunar orbit. Looks pretty good, until you click on it to see the traces of their compositing that remained in the component channels. Remember, this was done in a darkroom in the Old Days of optical photography. Note the alignment scratches. Note that when a background was matted out (like here), you don't get "buildings", even after processing, no matter how hard the image is "pushed"... just in case anyone was still thinking the backgrounds in the other photos were the result of processing artifacts. There is some rather peculiar interaction with the image format, though, and so I thought I should show an example of it lest I be accused of hiding anything. This is not uncommon on the NASA images, but is not found on mundane photographs. GIF, TIFF, JPEG, doesn't matter- they all look the same. I already mentioned that the NASA archive images credit various well-known software programs (like Adobe Photoshop and Image Alchemy) as being used in the preparation, which makes the odd effects even odder. Of course, if they aren't telling the truth about...well, we mentioned that already, too. Part Five coming soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ulman Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Since Duane cannot be bothered – This is the web page from this site that Duane copied the information from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 8, 2007 Author Share Posted January 8, 2007 (edited) Steve .... Please give it rest .... It is painfully clear now that you have nothing of value to offer to any of these discussions about the Apollo hoax ... I have already explained why I only copied the source link at the end of this article posted in part five . Edited January 8, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ulman Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Steve .... Please give it rest .... It is painfully clear now that you have nothing of value to offer to any of these discussions about the Apollo hoax ...I have already explained why I only copied the source link at the end of this article posted in part five . I posted analysis of the information you provided in Part 2 and 3, which you have ignored. Why don’t you add something of value and respond to my comments, in stead of BP&M. Your explanation made no sense. I provided the link in each of your "Parts" so that in the future when they become separated in the forum index, a casual reader won't be confused. Something you really should have done in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 8, 2007 Author Share Posted January 8, 2007 I did add someting of value ... I posted the original topic article here ... If you choose to not believe it , that's not my problem ....Why would you think I would feel the need to argue every point the author made in his correct analysis of the phony Apollo photos , by reading your incorrect analysis of them ? You posted the source links for future readers ??? ... Do you really think anyone reading these articles later on will really give a damn where they originated from ? ... Stop being so ridiculously redundant . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ulman Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 You posted the source links for future readers ??? ... Do you really think anyone reading these articles later on will really give a damn where they originated from ? ... Stop being so ridiculously redundant . No - I was also doing you a favor. I thought you didn't want to be accused of plagiarism. Or, is that what you really want them to think? Make up your mind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ulman Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 I did add someting of value ... I posted the original topic article here ... If you choose to not believe it , that's not my problem ....Why would you think I would feel the need to argue every point the author made in his correct analysis of the phony Apollo photos , by reading your incorrect analysis of them ? Why are my analyses incorrect? Do you have anything to add except your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 8, 2007 Author Share Posted January 8, 2007 My opinion is in agreement with the author of the article ... That's why I posted it .... What else is there to add ? .... I agree with him ... I disagree with you and Evan ... So it doesn't seem to me like there is much else to discuss about this .. that is unless you think this silly disinformation and distraction tactics game you all play here warrents anymore discussion . 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