NASA Photo Tampering, but oops, I think they forgot something.

Double post.

reply to post by BrnBdry


If you look at the 19 originals it seems the photographer moved quite a bit..
That would explain the shadows etc..
They may have painted out the sky to get rid ofb the lens flare from the sun and make the panorama look more realistic,,

seems their moon car should have made some tracks in the dirt.. lots of trash and footprints though..

reply to post by BrnBdry
[mor

could you reference these apparent anomalies please.

I am aware there's a lot about the supposed lunar landings and subsequent images that is suspect, though not sure if this image gives any real proof.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by backinblack

 

Link to source images:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Wondering if this 'aerial' is part of the ALSEP package:

Zoom in on the object:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/65fd2aa8c31d.png[/atsimg]

Image from Apollo 14 showing similar shaped object:

edit on 7/2/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

Ok, but the upclose image is roughly a foot tall. The one in the background is clearly alot taller than that based on the distance away.

Nice try tho.

Its easy for me to see as a graphic designer and photo manipulator that the background was actually shot in color and then transferred to grey scale. It is a totally manipulated photo. Yes it is also a "collage" so to speak...some of the "artifacts" that are in the photo were recolored.

Some of them were shot in color and superimposed on to the background. I believe what the poster is trying to say about the sky is that it wouldn't be hard black with no gradients that blend into the landscape.Although there would be some real instances where this would happen. Nothing natural has a hard line which shows its true shape, shape is determined by light and dark.

Eye have never been to the moon..However, I have shot and manipulated photographs. Eye believe that it was shot here on earth where even white sand refracts light and show PRISM color and so it was changed to grey scale.

Besides that the lens flare basically shows the direction of the supposed source lighting the "sun". There are major conflicting shadows and black and white tones which suggest it was also shot at differing times.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Wondering if this 'aerial' is part of the ALSEP package:

Sure looks the same shape...

reply to post by BrnBdry


I think you need help seeing, you stitch together 19 images and see how it looks, it would be all patchy, since the panorama is for looks only, the sky in the background has been photoshopped so it looks better, hell the entire panorama has been touched up so it looks better.

reply to post by BrnBdry

Ok, but the upclose image is roughly a foot tall. The one in the background is clearly alot taller than that based on the distance away.

Nice try tho.

I'm not sure what you are useing to judge height...

reply to post by backinblack


True, true to that.
Best make sure it's truly NASA's before pointing the angry photo editing finger.

Its a moon-critter crucifix. They are, after all, a religious bunch.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by BrnBdry

 

I think you need help seeing, you stitch together 19 images and see how it looks, it would be all patchy, since the panorama is for looks only, the sky in the background has been photoshopped so it looks better, hell the entire panorama has been touched up so it looks better.

Well I counted 4 pics with the other astronaust in..
Imagine if they left all 4 in, we'd have everyone screaming hoax..

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by BrnBdry

 

I think you need help seeing, you stitch together 19 images and see how it looks, it would be all patchy, since the panorama is for looks only, the sky in the background has been photoshopped so it looks better, hell the entire panorama has been touched up so it looks better.

Im confused as to where you guys figures I was under the impression it was a single photo? Just saying they tampered with the sky. Why? To make it look better? or to block out what the sky actually looked like from the surface?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by BrnBdry

 

Ok, but the upclose image is roughly a foot tall. The one in the background is clearly alot taller than that based on the distance away.

Nice try tho.

I'm not sure what you are useing to judge height...

The footprint in his photo.

Comedy.

reply to post by BrnBdry


It all depends on what the tolerances are set to in your painting program. I do not use paint, but a slightly more sophisticated program called Corel Photopaint. If you set the tolerances low enough, you will paint the entire picture white. If you set the tolerances high enough, you will only paint a few pixels.

Learn to use the painting program. It is obvious you are not familiar with digital image painting. It is also obvious you are not familiar with the NASA moon program and film photography.

The sky is the one thing that no-one tampered with. Its just black. No graduations or uneveness, just black.

reply to post by BrnBdry

Im confused as to where you guys figures I was under the impression it was a single photo? Just saying they tampered with the sky. Why? To make it look better? or to block out what the sky actually looked like from the surface?

Insert all 19 pics into excel and join them up..
The lense flares seen in many of the pics would wreck the panorama..

This is just a publicity pic...That's all.....

Go through the originals and shoe signs of tampering and then you will have something worth debating..

reply to post by Chadwickus


I thought the op was talking about this.




No footprints. A little wierd.

Found another one:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0bc2a85133f9.png[/atsimg]

And another one (in colour):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cb20282b46ed.png[/atsimg]

I think these are geophones for the ALSEP experiment.



More details on ALSEP:

en.wikipedia.org...

The photo may have been adjusted for higher contrast to increase quality of visible details, thus blending darkest blacks into solid black.

However, with all that gold foil wrapped around the box one would expect to see gold tinted reflections scattering across the ground.
Am I wrong?