NASA Exposed! Fake Moon Images?

reply to post by alupang


Why aren't people reading the darn thread??

Mike (the OP) you've really stirred the pot, ain't ya?

Allow me to try the anti-thesis (even though we all know the true intent, despite the thread title...I do like this video...)

reply to post by chiponbothshoulders



edit for duplicate

[edit on 4/24/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by chiponbothshoulders


chip, to answer the camera question...well, you'll see in the 'MythBusters' clip, it was a Hasselblad 70mm film camera.

And, no....the radiation was not intense enough to affect the film...they thought of that beforehand.

But, thanks for asking. It would be interestiing here for me to note that I was 12 years old when Apollo 11 landed. Funny how the viral nature of the Internet allows the younger folks to be confused because of irresponsible (not you, Mike the OP!!) folk who spout nonsense....Bart Sibrel comes foremost to mind.

*edit* for chip: Could you please explain what you meant by 'two' light sources? There was one....the Sun. IF you wish to surmise a second light source, then you'd see two diverging shadows. (This effect is commonly demonstrated right here on Earth...just stand between two streetlights at night...)

*edit again* because I foolishly took 'chip' for an actual questioner. Only after the fact do I tend to think he is a 'troll' for the asinine spelling of "arsetronaut"!!! Seems more like a utube denizen....

[edit on 4/24/0909 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 4/24/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
They must have replicated those rocks and other meaningless attributes of the photo to distract attention from there being two light sources.
How is it that the sun is in the photo,but the arsetronaut's shadow is cast as if the light source is behind him?.
Hmmmm.

It is a 360º panoramic composite. The photo with the astronaut's shadow is 180º from the photo with the sun.

Somewhere on the moon there's some lil guy saying "There! I was RIGHT THERE before the edit!"

Originally posted by ArMaP
To show that it is possible, this is the result of a more careful attempt at making a panorama with the same three photos from my previous attempt.


(click for full size)

Although it could be better (I am not a specialist with Photoshop), this was the result of maybe 30 minutes' work.

So, yes, they could have made a much better panorama, I wonder why they did not did it.

One makes a panorama out of stitching images together like you have done. But note that these are straight along the vertical/horizontal axes, right along the edges of the photographs.

Now have a look at the image where I have marked the areas where presumably they have been stitched together.

They're ALL OVER THE PLACE! Now why has it been done so? Is it shoddy art work by those dudes at NASA, cutting up the images randomly and THEN stitching them together? Strange!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/eba334ee7182.jpg[/atsimg]

You asked why I've written the header as, 'NASA Exposed!' That's because their incompetence has been exposed! Or at least I thought so!

Cheers!

Originally posted by mikesingh
They're ALL OVER THE PLACE! Now why has it been done so? Is it shoddy art work by those dudes at NASA, cutting up the images randomly and THEN stitching them together? Strange!

Because as has been explained. It's the fault of the software used. There is no perfect method. Go to the site I linked to or to any other site that has Apollo panorama's. Many people have made their own using the original photos. I've done them myself too. They all contain similar stitching issues.

You asked why I've written the header as, 'NASA Exposed!' That's because their incompetence has been exposed! Or at least I thought so!

No it has not. The only thing that's been exposed is that image stitching software isn't perfect.

Case in point.

I went out and took some photos today to put together to make a small panoramic shot. I took six photos that cover less than 180 degrees, so there's a decent amount of overlap for each photo and this is the result.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8c882a6827c8.png[/atsimg]

The pile of rocks and dirt didn't turn out quite right. The software might have found the detailed pattern of rocks and pebbles a bit confusing and hard to line up perfectly. You can see that it even merged two separate rocks into one, when you compare it with one of the original frames.

Originally posted by jra
Because as has been explained. It's the fault of the software used.

What is the name of the software used?

Please post any links that contain information about the software used on this particular image.
(I'm referring to the image contributed by mikesingh - and which you are commenting on in your last post).

*Thanks in advance

[edit on 24-4-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
What is the name of the software used?

Please post any links that contain information about the software used on this particular image.

It could be some in-house program or some commercial software. My first guess would be to assume commercial software due to the panorama's being "Powered by Zoomify", but I can't say for certain.

[edit on 24-4-2009 by jra]

Originally posted by jra

It could be some in-house program or some commercial software. My first guess would be...

So you don't even know the name of the software which you are assigning fault...

Finding this pertinent information and posting it would help substantiate your claims. Please do this.

Thanks in advance.

reply to post by Exuberant1


From the website with the panoramas:

For questions or comments about this dataset please contact [email protected].

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Perhaps you could send them an email and ask them what software was used to make the panoramas?




[edit on 24/4/09 by ziggystar60]

reply to post by ziggystar60


JRA is the one making the claims about the software being at fault. He didn't provide the name of the software that he was making allegations about.

This lead to me asking him to name the software, and then you made your last post - wherein you also neglect to provide the name the software and only provide the email address of the persons you believe may have used the faulted program.

(An equivalent to this sort of 'citation' would be me giving you the name of a researcher who based some of his work upon a book, and expecting you to identify that book solely from my providing the name of a researcher who only used that book in his work)

No matter.

*Do you know the name of the software program the JRA is faulting?
-Please post it if you do.

*Do you also conclude that the anomalies/flaws in this image can be attributed to a software program?
-If so, please name the program that you believe is at fault.

As you may know, the member making the claims is the one responsible for providing substantiation for those claims. Should those claims reference or cite a software program, that member should at the very least provide us with the name of that program. It is a prerequisite for us to be able to perform our own inquiries and research into the matter and should be provided in accompaniment of the theory which faults it.

Thanks in advance.

[edit on 24-4-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Sorry, I was under the impression that you actually wanted to know the name of the software. I was in fact just suggesting a way for you to find out, the way I would have used if it was important for me to know this.

But I see that you had other motives for asking, and that this was just a part of some personal war. So I will simply step away and leave you to it.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
So you don't even know the name of the software which you are assigning fault...

Why is it so important for you to know the specific name of the program? What will knowing this accomplish for you? How will the name of the software substantiate my claims?

The anomalies can indeed be attributed to any software program that stitches images together. Save some Apollo images to your computer. Download some free image stitching programs. There's nothing stopping you from trying it out and seeing for yourself.

I fired off a quick email to the LPI and asked what software they use since it seems to be extremely important.

Originally posted by jra
I fired off a quick email to the LPI and asked what software they use since it seems to be extremely important.

Again;

Thanks in advance. I appreciate your efforts.

Edit: Did you address this specific image in your email to LPI?

[edit on 24-4-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by WWu777


The answer to no stars is very simple! When your camera sets the exposure to on objet or location that is bright, anything else becomes dark. It does this so the object your trying to take the picture of does not become over exposed in other words (overly bright)
Cameras don't function like our eyes.

Do a little experiment if you have a digital camera. have someone stand in front of a large window during a sunny day and take their picture at a distance without using the flash. if the camera exposes for the brightness coming through the window, the person will be almost completely dark. I doubt you might even see any facial features.

reply to post by Zeus2573


Get your camera zoom in a bit and take a picture of a fulll moon then post the photo showing the stars. I think you will notice the starts are mot present. It's called exposure.

[edit on 24-4-2009 by Beowolfs]

reply to post by Beowolfs


Your right, all you would get is the Moon. No denying that. Especially when you zoom in.That is when it's full anyway. I believe its called light pollution.

Taking a picture of the Moon from Earth (when its full) and taking picture from the Moon isn't even remotely similar.

Originally posted by Zeus2573
Your right, all you would get is the Moon. No denying that. Especially when you zoom in.That is when it's full anyway. I believe its called light pollution.

Here's an example I found:
img.photobucket.com...
Is the moon even close to full? Do you see any stars in this photo?

Taking a picture of the Moon from Earth (when its full) and taking picture from the Moon isn't even remotely similar.

Actually it's very similar. The moon's a very bright thing, to properly expose it from the earth or while on the moon you need a fast exposure, way too fast for stars to show up.

[edit on 24-4-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by jra


Unless there has been a change the LPI stock software won't work with Vista. But I was able to get the LPI to work the AvCap. I use a Phillips SPC900NC webcam now and it works fantastic.