NASA moon landing pictures Analyzed - new cool video!

The photos where he shows duplicate objects in the scene, it's from a process called photo stitching. You take multiple panoramic photos and stitch them together, but some edges have to overlap, which causes duplicate objects. With airbrushing, the duplicate objects can be removed, which I think the fact that there IS duplicate objects in the panoramic photos means if anything, the photos WERE NOT retouched.

reply to post by ArMaP


hey, ArMap.....great post as always!!

If your sound was bad, what the narration said was that the Hasselblad cameras had the Zeiss lens.....thusly, 'no lens flares'.

Well....I'm not an expert like you, but I'm going to ask, would not any compound lens, when pointed near the Sun, possibly have lens flare artifacts??

While we're on about this, could you explain away another common 'Moon Hoax' theory...has to do with the reflection of the Sun in the Astronaut's visors. This one particularly 'grinds my gears!' (Family Guy reference ... for South Park fans, it puts sand in my vagina)

The theory holds that some photos are faked, because of the relative size of the Sun's reflection, in the gold visors. I maintain it has to do with the distance of the camera, from the visors....and the focal length of the lenses used. I mean, a 'fish-eye' lens, for instance, will produce a very different photo than, say....a 58mm lens...right?

Thanks for your expertise in clearing this one up!!

Cheers!!!

Yes, stitching sometimes requires duplicating sections of individual photographs to make complete panoramas. You'll even see this in satellite photographs of the Earth. Don't anyone tell him that Greenland isn't larger than Europe. He'll say our maps are faked.

It's news to me that Hasselblad invented 100% glare-free lenses! Any lens with more than one element will flare. That's a physical law that's as old as optics.

Also, things farther away appear smaller in photographs than objects nearer to the camera. Those giant spiders and crickets in the Bert I. Gordon movies were indeed faked but the astronaut some distance behind the large boulder should look smaller, unless they faked it.

This man is just not familiar with photography.

reply to post by scowl


YES!! Thank you, scowl....oh, you've signed off. No matter.

First, we hear this nonsense about 'air-brushing' all of the time. Well, in the 1960s, maybe....who knows? I mean, you print from the original negative, then 'paint' that print, re-photograph it and voila!! A new negative!!!

BUT, resolution will be lost, and experts will notice...I would assume.

Nowadays, we have digital manipulation technology....but most of the Apollo, Gemini and Mercury-era photos have been out for so long, who's gonna get away with manipulating them? Certainly not NASA!! AND, if anyone thinks NASA, or anyone, had the computer power to run Photoshop (which of course didn't even exist) in 1969....then go ahead and show us wrong on that count.

No....what we have is a crappy video, based on a published book.....where the PUBLISHER manipulated a few photos to fit the page better....and suddenly!!! It's a NASA conspiracy!!!!

Bah! Humbug!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by smason202

 

Sorry, someone else posted a link to this same video, can't remember where.

The british guy shows obvious digital phot manipulation in some, but along the very bottom edges....doubt you'd hide anything there!!

THEN, he uses the 360 panorama photo from the Moon book to imply it's fake because you can't see the LM....um, he ain't too bright if he can't figure out there are low hills obscuring the LM from view!!! This is the kind of drivel that just grinds my gears!!!

AND, in case you're wondering how the Astronauts found the LM if they couldn't see it from behind a hill....ummmmm well, they simply follow their tracks back "home".....duh!!

Oh, and he goes on about the dark shadows....of course low shadows are very dark, but a man in a bright white spacesuit standing out in the open is going to be illuminated by reflected light!!!

AND, if this is the same video, he claims to see spotlights. SPOTLIGHTS? More than ONE light source would result in multiple shadows!!!!

Hi weedwhacker
I am new here so didnt look to see if this was done already and still I cant find it If anyone knows the title of it. I will add the link here and post a comment on their thread

Originally posted by weedwhacker
First, we hear this nonsense about 'air-brushing' all of the time. Well, in the 1960s, maybe....who knows? I mean, you print from the original negative, then 'paint' that print, re-photograph it and voila!! A new negative!!!

BUT, resolution will be lost, and experts will notice...I would assume.

Manually altering the negative or a print is not that difficult, just time consuming, and it requires some experience.

The best way of doing it would be to create a new negative (preferably from the original negative) and make the alterations on the negative.

The prints from that negative would not show any traces of tampering, if the work was well done.

My sister (who is a photographer, and from who (or is it whom?) I learnt all I know about photography) knows a guy that once took a photo of a man with glasses with special lighting to avoid reflections, and he changed the way the light illuminated the man in the whole photo, recreating the complete illumination of a normal lighting but without the reflections.

PS: airbrushing is only used in large areas with the same background, like a wall or the sky, small detail is done with very fine brushes, sometimes with only one hair, and with sharp blades to scrap the emulsion from the negative.

I just checked my copy of Michael Light's book 'Full Moon' to check the validity of the claims made by Marcus Allen in the Real World video. It's interesting to compare his comments with what you actually see with the book in your hands.

His first example of image tampering concerns a double page spread of a composite image of a large rock. The bottom edge of this image does indeed contain some cut & paste strips in the centre and on the left hand page. However, Allen's assertion that this was done to make the picture 'prettier' and is a 'cheat' (presumably by NASA) is misleading.

If you examine the image first hand, you'll see that it's quite scewed to the right. The camera appears to have been turned anticlockwise somewhat when the images were taken. This results in a picture that's rotated clockwise in the frame and the scene would have looked tilted. Printing it like that would have left the bottom edge of the frame at an angle of about 10 degrees to the page. This cut and paste was clearly done by the book designer to fill the bottom space. If NASA wanted to fool us with something like this, I reckon they would have been rather more subtle.

Here's the full image: Cut & Paste Image

The book has glossy pages so I apologise for any reflections. I avoided using the flash to keep this to a minimum.

The next issue Allen talks about is the 'Spotlights'. He describes the panoramic view of the Apollo17 landing site and eventually focusses in on the lights in the sky. The official explanation of lens flaring is dismissed out of hand. He knows the Hasselblad camera so well, there's no way these are flares. So, they must be spotlights inadvertantly caught on camera during the fake enactment of the Moon landing. Could we really swallow that?

The fact is that of the fifty or so images in the book showing the lunar surface, about thirty percent of them show lens flaring. The flares are so obviously flares, comment is hardly required. There are large round flares and there are small complex flares. But they are all flares. The composits are clearly made from individual frames taken some time apart. The sun shifts position and so do the flare angles. It's all natural physics and nothing to do with hoaxes and spotlights. Here's a selection of lens flares created by the Apollo cameras.

Full Moon Image 2 Looking almost straight at the sun.

Full Moon Image 3 Notice how rugged the terrain and how small the Lander (Antares/Apollo 14) actually is 600 feet away. It could be hidden from view in just a few hundred yards.

Full Moon Image 4 The astronaut has his back to the sun. Does he have a spotlamp illuminating him? There's no evidence of another light source.

Full Moon Image 5 There are stars in the sky. You simple need a fast lens. It's Alan Bean/Apollo 12.

Full Moon Image 6 This is detail from a double-page spread. It's David Scott (Apollo 15) 300 feet up the flank of the 11,500 foot Hadley Delta mountain. The hills beyond him are over 10 miles away! Notice the slo-mo dust ring near his left foot. Very difficult to hoax low gravity effects.

Full Moon Image 7 How big is it? It's actually bigger than your house!

Full Moon Image 8 From the Moon Rover driving seat (Apollo 17).

Full Moon Image 9 This is the Rover's low gain communications antenna, again from one of the passenger seats (Apollo 15).

Full Moon image 10 Notice the sun position. This side of the lander (Falcon/Apollo 15) is in full shade, but clearly visible details due to its albedo and scattered light.

Unfortunately, small sections of only two images from the book are used in Allen's video to demonstrate his belief of a hoax. That 10% of those published show airbrushing is patently untrue as anyone seeing them first hand can attest. The fact is he's talking out of his hat. The images in this book are some of the most awe inspiring pictures you will ever see.

There are other assertions made which aren't supportable scientifically. His remarks about the illumination of objects in shadow make no reference to illumination angle and albedo and are therefore worthless. They only sound plausible if you know as little about it as he seems to know.

WG3

reply to post by smason202


Who the hell is the so called "expert" that is in the video with his "analysis" this guy is a nut an obviously doesnt have a clue what he is talking about!!



at 2:15 hes talking B*£&**ks its a montage of images it is just used to increase the frame size to make the image fit the page better, every a nursery school kid could spot that.
3:15 the lander is either over the small hill or the astronaut has his back to the lander
4:34 - this is flare on / in the lens, believe me i have worked in photo processing for ten years and have seen all kinds of lens flare
5:47 - light on the astronaut, he is illuminated more cause he is in a WHITE Space suit and the rest is a dull grey. light is reflected at all angles on the surface, so it is perfectly possible, i have seen pictures where there was only one light source and it looks like there are two or more sorces in the image, it has a fancy name but for the life of me i cant remeber it,

Photo export my A$$ i hate idiots with an agenda when they give an "expert" opinion

We should compliment whoever found the chilling music to accompany the man's worthless opinions. Very scary!

Another thing about stitching. These days it's a lot easier to fill in missing spots by stretching sections since that's easy to do on a computer. Back then they didn't have Photoshop so doing the equivalent would involve reprinting the negatives with enough tilt so they'll be stretched to fill the areas. That is a very time consuming process. I'm sure whoever put the panoramas together just decided to save time and labor by duplicating sections of the same image with no tilt.

You won't see duplicated objects in the Photoshop stitching but they're just as "faked".

Originally posted by wolf241e
reply to post by smason202

 

That's a new one to me. I guess that I never sew those pictures before. It's really interesting how the man in the video picked up on the fact that NASA was cutting and pasting scenes together.
Going to have to look with better eyes from now on!!

Good post!!

Thank you wolf241e I also thought it was interesting how the hoax to the pictures could be deliberate for a whole other reason than what we all thought.
Eyes I believe get stronger the more we train them and look

NASA is a fraud. This is a conspiracy site. If any of you believe in the shadow government and its NWO agenda, how you can believe ANYTHING NASA tells you is beyond me.

Original moonlanding the public was shown was a complete fabrication in my eyes. Remember, NASA is feeding the gullible. Ask yourself why NASA dont want you to know the real truths of the universe? Control.

One day we'll all know the real universe, and NASA will fall to the wayside, and no longer suck the tax dollars into their real hidden agenda.

Love

Z

He did not say the lenses were flare free. He said the flare is distinctly different and even pointed out what looked like correct flare.


A very good reason to spread disinformation about what is on the moon and the existence of space aliens would be the complete faking of the lunar missions.

Well howdy, how could they be fake if they are covering up alien golf courses on the moon? We all know about the alien hottubs airbrushed from the pictures so they must have been there, right?

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow

NASA is a fraud. This is a conspiracy site. If any of you believe in the shadow government and its NWO agenda, how you can believe ANYTHING NASA tells you is beyond me.

Original moonlanding the public was shown was a complete fabrication in my eyes. Remember, NASA is feeding the gullible. Ask yourself why NASA dont want you to know the real truths of the universe? Control.

One day we'll all know the real universe, and NASA will fall to the wayside, and no longer suck the tax dollars into their real hidden agenda.

Love

Z

Hi Z I have to say I do happen to agree with you on NASA lies and control. It amazes me just how much NASA has really been caught out and yet never outed completely. It was after seeing the airbrushed moon photos that really made me believe they are keeping so much from us. If the Illuminati truly exist then NASA must be part of it also. Someday the truth must come out. No matter how bad we should have the option to know

Oh heres that video on airbrushed nasa pictures

Wow...

This YouTube video and Mr. Allen's analysis is so full of inaccuracies and poor deductive reasoning, I don't know where to start.

1. He was discussing the photo of the boulder which obvious had a foreground that showed identical rocks twice. He's right about that -- it is obviously a photo-mosaic that was not dput together as well as it could have been. However, he goes on to say that this is a historical record, and it should not be made to "look pretty". Well I don't know who made the bad mosaic (maybe NASA, but I don't know), but that mosaic is NOT the historical record. The hiostorical record are the original individual photos, which are publically available and are on the internet. The original photos don't have this "repeating rock" issue -- only the mosaic does.

There are over a dozen photos taken of that area. None of them show the rocks "twice". Here's just one of them: history.nasa.gov...

Mr. Allen should of at least looked at the originals before making his obviously inaccurate claims.

2. Regarding the photo of Jack Schmitt at the boulder:history.nasa.gov...
The astronaut is clearly in the background, about a meter behind the boulder (the entire back of the boulder is visible in his visor)...of course he will look smaller than comparable sized objects in the foreground -- that's perfectly natural. However, the YouTube video goes on to say that the astronaut looks 30-65 cm tall. The gnomon in the foreground (The device with the tripod) is about 70 cm tall, and the astronaut appears even taller that that -- even not taking into accout that the astronaut is in the background, a few meters behind the gnomon.

So, I have no idea where the comment that "the astronaut looks only 30-65 cm tall" came from.

3. Mr. Allen saw a couple of problems with that 360 degree panorama (and he had some more lapses of reasoning).

First of all, he said that photo should show the LEM, since it was a picture of the landing site. But in fact it was NOT the landing site, but rather "Station 5" which was 2 km away from the landing site, so the LEM would probably NOT be visible in that panorama.

AND...Even IF they made a panorama of the landing site, the astronaut could have easily walked around the LEM, keeping his back to the LEM when taking each photo...the LEM would not be in that panorama either.

Secondly, Mr. Allen talks about "Spot lights" and says they cannot be lens flare. Well, again all he had to do was look at the original photos (instead of the 360 degree mosaic), he would easily see that these spots are INDEED lens flare. Here are the original photos:

history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

Why doesn't he just look at prints of the original NASA photos, rather than relying on the photos in the book "Full Moon"? He could have answered his own questions if he did.

He also mentions that the portion of the astronaut that is in shadow is visible, but portions of rocks that are in shadow are not. That's another easy one. The astronaut is wearing a bright white spacesuit, and the rocks are a gray color (even though they look white in sunlight, they are not). Obviously a white space suit would be more visible (even when lit by reflected light) than a gray rock.

4. In general, Mr. Allen had problems with the photos in the book "Full Moon", citing that the montage/mosaic technique used for the photos in that book cover things up. BUT, the fact is that ALL of the photos used to create the montages/mosaics in that book are available for the public to see, and upon inspection of those photos, Mr. Allen's arguments all fall apart (at least the ones in this YouTube video.

I don't know if Mr. Allen truly believes in what he says, or if he's just trying to make money. Either way it's pathtic.


EDIT TO ADD: By the way, why is this in the "Aliens and UFOs" forum...shouldn't it be in the "Space Exploration" forum?

[edit on 7/10/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by smason202


That last video you just posted ... well, hate to brake it to you, but JPEG compression on an image is NOT a civilization. And as far as i know, that was the major point of that clip.

Take a picture on your computer, and save it as Jpeg, then compress it to the lowest level. Bojaka , you got yourself a little civilization on your computer.

The image he was using in that video is a 3D generated image done with topographic data. In other words, it was not an image, rather an 3D generated computer graphics..

Here is the image the narrator reffers to in the movie:
esamultimedia.esa.int...

As you can see, this is not an image, its a 3D graphics image, generated FROM a 2D image. Mike Singh also fails to see that fact.

[edit on 10-7-2008 by tep200377]

Originally posted by tep200377
reply to post by smason202

 

That last video you just posted ... well, hate to brake it to you, but JPEG compression on an image is NOT a civilization. And as far as i know, that was the major point of that clip.

Take a picture on your computer, and save it as Jpeg, then compress it to the lowest level. Bojaka , you got yourself a little civilization on your computer.

The image he was using in that video is a 3D generated image done with topographic data. In other words, it was not an image, rather an 3D generated computer graphics..

Here is the image the narrator reffers to in the movie:
esamultimedia.esa.int...

As you can see, this is not an image, its a 3D graphics image, generated FROM a 2D image. Mike Singh also fails to see that fact.

[edit on 10-7-2008 by tep200377]

No problem tep, I dont believe everything I hear. And excellent picture
I didnt know much on 2d and 3d but can see your point on what was said in the video

Originally posted by smason202
I came across this and its only 3 months old and is very interesting

The video can be seen in HD from here

[edit on 10-7-2009 by smason202]