[Busted] NASA caught faking Gemini-10 Spacewalk Photos?

Just googling nasa fakes came up with an interesting site,had a brief look and there are some good photos there.will read it all in more depth later


nasascam.bravehost.com...

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Perhaps it is not light leakage.

Maybe it is actually something on the projector that is being used to display the image on a screen...

NASA sometime tapes a picture to a wall, and then take a photograph of that - then they send it to us as the original. (Such images can be seen at thelivingmoon.com)

In this case, it appears NASA projected an image onto a screen that was pulled down in front of a wall. Then they took a picture of this picture projected onto the screen and then released it.

*By taking a high-res photo of a low res photo, NASA can disingenuously say that it is a 'higher resolution' image. Technically they aren't lying... Bunch of crooks.
(I posted examples of his shady tactic on Page One of this thread.)


Edit: See if you can spot which image is being projected onto a screen:

Is it this one?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fe9e18ce77b9.jpg[/atsimg]

Or this one?







[edit on 16-7-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Exuberant,

In this case, it appears NASA projected an image onto a screen that was pulled down in front of a wall. Then they took a picture of this picture projected onto the screen and then released it.

For what possible purpose would NASA do this??

So that conspiracy theorists can start threads on a conspiracy website?

I mean...really, truly, do you think NASA projected an actual Apollo 17 image on a screen with a red piece of paper behind, then photographed THAT, and released it??? Again, WHY??

Originally posted by franspeakfree

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AS TO Exuberant's OP???

So a book publisher falsified an image? This merits a thread on ATS?
[edit on 16 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

Absolutely worth a thread because it proves without a shadow of a doubt mis information linked to NASA and as MWAH said for those of us that have our reservations when it comes to NASA'S honesty its vitally important to bring forward as much information to prove photo tampering was taking place way before photoshop came on to the seen.

Franspeakfree, you can take NASA images and photoshop them anyway you want and publish a book with your photoshopped images. How is NASA responsible for any altered images you publish, or any images published by anyone else, as in this case? I don't follow your logic at all.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I think he's talking about Zorgon's Orbiter print. Which Zorgon (or one of his crew) took a picture of.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

I think he's talking about Zorgon's Orbiter print. Which Zorgon (or one of his crew) took a picture of.

It was Sherpa.

He ordered it from NASA - Well, you know what he got...

I'll try and dig it up.

I'm putting together a thread of 'pictures of pictures' that NASA has released to the public. That image would fit the bill nicely.

Edit: Here is what Sherpa got from NASA; A picture with tape/mylar in the shot:



I also found the pic at LPI - have a look:

www.lpi.usra.edu...



Here is what Zorgon had to say about Sherpa's Pic:

You caught them red handed...
Now look at the 'whole big picture" It is a piece of tape holding a photograph at the top... and your 'hires copy" is a photograph of the photo taped to the wall
Well I guess I won't be wasting any more money buying high resolution images from NASA or LPI

That ought to get Sherpa an award

-www.thelivingmoon.com...

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Exuberant1]

I must say that is pretty amusing high resolution image

I'm not sure if it has been proven that he actually received it from NASA, but if it did come from them....I'm sure that photographer has been fired by now..

How much was it for one of those high res images.....hope not to much $$$$

reply to post by Phage


Oh...I see.

I think I've heard mention by zorgon that photos ordered "from NASA" are now supplied by an outside vendor.

If 'they' are ripping people off, then it's certainly reason to get good and mad!

Originally posted by Overload

I'm not sure if it has been proven that he actually received it from NASA, but if it did come from them....I'm sure that photographer has been fired by now..

Here is the same image at the Lunar Planetary Institute website - it also has tape on it and appears to have had the top cropped.....

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Originally posted by Exuberant1


Here is what Internos had to say about Sherpa's Pic:

You caught them red handed...
Now look at the 'whole big picture" It is a piece of tape holding a photograph at the top... and your 'hires copy" is a photograph of the photo taped to the wall
Well I guess I won't be wasting any more money buying high resolution images from NASA or LPI

That ought to get Sherpa an award

-www.thelivingmoon.com...

Exuberant1, that's a quote from Zorgon, in reply to my

"OMG, what the heck happened to that pic

"

You can find the original post here



[edit on 16/7/2009 by internos]

reply to post by internos


My bad.

I'll edit it out - don't want to sow further confusion.

Thanks internos.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


No not really. The moral rights to the image belong to NASA. That means that you're not allowed to modify the images.

There was a piece on NPR this morning featuring a NASA representative speaking openly about the 'restoration' of the Apollo 11 moon walk footage.

He stated that it was historically accurate despite their ability to make it look any way they wanted.

"We've got to be very, very mindful of history," says Lowry. "If you want to go to the extreme, you could take these images and completely re-create them. You could create a three-dimensional model of the lunar lander, and you could make it look beautiful. But I don't think that's the point. I think the point is that Apollo 11 was a very, very special historical event."

NPR LINK



Here' s a link to some of the new improved images:
NASA LINK

reply to post by internos

2908 is the last photo from the magazine. history.nasa.gov...
I remember with film, trying to squeeze the last frame out of a roll and tearing the film loose from the cannister and damaging the emulsion more than once. It looks like that what happened here. In the high rez scan you can see that the emulsion is a mess. 2907 is just fine.

2908


2907



[edit on 7/16/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


So it's exactly what it looks to be (at least to me) -- and that's damage to the film stock/negative or a damaged print. As Phage pointed out, damaged to negatives may occur at the end of a film magazine.

I don't understand how people think this is a picture of a print "taped to a wall". I just don't see it.

You'll also notice that many of the pictures with light seepage are from the beginning or end of the film magazine -- places more likely to be affected by seepage. Take a look at the Apollo film magazines and you will often find the seepage at the beginning and end.

[edit on 7/16/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by internos


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1d27dbbb9b8d.jpg[/atsimg]

I did a direct overlay before I noticed your animation. Same results. Close but no cigar. They don't match.

reply to post by Phage


That is exactly what that is. Good call.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Perhaps age is the issue. I'm old enough to remember those tears from the tape at the end of the film roll. In that image it is obvious even the way the edges of the tear looked. Even with common home use still camera's we would sometimes get an extra shot on the end. Often though you ended up with the edge ruined. Usually the best frame

I have some questions.

Firstly, what were the methods of manipulating photos in the 60's? We all have some varying degree of photo manipulation access with the programs on our computers. I'm just curious, since Digital photo manipulation is a hobby of mine.

Also,
When they train for hundreds of hours on a particular mission on earth, isn't so that it would go smoothly in space? Wouldn't their movements be fairly exact, as to eliminate any "anomalies" that could occur?

reply to post by bad man incorporated

Firstly, what were the methods of manipulating photos in the 60's?

Well, I wasn't yet a teenager in the 1960s, but since there were no computers smaller than a house, I'd say that photo 'manipulation' was limited to what they did in Playboy and other 'fashion' magazines...airbrush, re-shoot.