NASA "smoking gun" evidence for Moon photos hoaxing

I just stumbled upon what I think may be a "smoking gun" as far as evidence for NASA tampering with colors and images.

The image is this one:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

The evidence is treefold:
First of all - it seems they have put colors on earthly objects such as the astronauts and their equipment while leaving the moon surface black and white. The evidence for this is several objects in the image which they have forgotten to colorize and they are left in black and white. The most obvious object is the "bag" located at bottom of the photo to the right of the astronaut with the moon vehicle - it is close to the camera / bottom of the image. This is clearly in black and white. The same goes for several other objects in the photo - just below the wheel to the left of the astronaut is another instrument, some sort of rod sticking up from the ground, again in black and white. To the left of the vehicle at same height as it you find yet another object in black and white by the mound - this also seem to be some instrument placed there by the astronauts. Further to the left you have the big box with an antenna on it which is in color, a read cable is connected to it - follow more to the left and another instrument is sticking up from the ground with a cable from the top, and again this one appears in black and white. All the way to the left with the big rocks is another antenna placed sticking up from the ground just above the left side of the rocks. Again in black and white.

Secondly: Lights - Go to the right of the vehicle and you will see a red cable across the ground coming from the bottom of the image, here you can see light reflections in the lense causing flares and beams to show. Notice that there is no light source above, and the flares and light beams stops exactly where the mountains in the background ends and the black horizon comes in - obviously this should not be the case, the light beams and flares should be consistent out into the black area as well as these are lens artifacts and have nothing to do with the background. In other words, it seems to indicate strongly that the background has simply been cut out following the edges of the mountains.

Thirdly: Background repetition - the background is the EXACT same as the background of the following photo:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

These photos are supposed to be taken at different sites, yet the background is identical. Also notice that there is no visible light source on the first image yet it is strongly visible in the second image - in my opinion rather artifical looking. The first image has the "sun" cut out and replaced with a completely black background, while this second image has the "sun" there. Notice the shadows and position of the astronaut photographing both images - he is in the exact same spot and have the exact direction of ligh shining upon him, shown by his shadow (on the left on both photos). The light source would have to be in the same place in both images yet it is not - although traces of the light source is visible in first image by the flares and light beams but the source itself is removed. Just look at the shadows for confirmation.

For some further analysis of these photos and the duplicate background check the following url where I originally found this, the light, shadows and black & white objects I found myself when studying the photos.

More Moon Evidence - duplicate background and image tampering

When it comes to the backgrounds, I personally feel the following website gives a rather plausible and reasonable explanation on how they faked these:
jayweidner.com...

Notice that the above link has 4 pages, linked on the bottom of each page.

I would also like to add that Jan Lundberg , whom was the Manager Of Space Projects at Hasselblad that produced the cameras used to take the photos on the Moon, have publicly said he can not see how these photos can be possible in a natural way without artificial spotlights used. I would say he should be rather qualified for making such a comment and it is something worth considering.

-Maggador

[edit on 11-9-2009 by IX-777]

I'll comment on first impressions that I am able to without reading anything so it's as unbiased as possible. I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that any tampering in undeniable evidence of a landing hoax especially when they're panoramas assembled from many images. Manipulation is a necessary element in stitching each section as seamlessly as possible.

I notice that the lander is in both pictures, visible towards the middle of the first and obviously a main object in the second. The background isn't quite a perfect match as many of the angles of the ridges don't match.

The second photo was taken nearer the lander than the first, the mountains are much larger and farther away than they appear thus appear very similar from two different positions.

if the sun is the only bright source of light in space, then why are their shadows all over the place going in different directions?

i see so many things wrong with these pictures. if i had to guess, i'd say they were taking here on earth in a big studio or in the desert somewhere and heavily altered to look like it's on the moon.

just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by jaden_x
if the sun is the only bright source of light in space, then why are their shadows all over the place going in different directions?

They aren't. It should be wrapped onto a cylinder to have it make sense.

Originally posted by jaden_x
if the sun is the only bright source of light in space, then why are their shadows all over the place going in different directions?

It's a panoramic composite.

It's a panoramic composite.

ah, that makes sense. i though it was a single panoramic shot. not a composite of many. thanks.

but the color issue is still up for grabs i suppose.

Originally posted by jaden_x
but the color issue is still up for grabs i suppose.

To me it looks colorized just to add to the presence and was probably originally black and white or taken to black and white at some point. Look at the lander in the second panorama. It looks partially colored where the foil is placed but missed in many areas. Look at the landing support on the left and how the chroma looks smeared like it was overlayed.

reply to post by IX-777


IX-777, this OP is the exact same post you made in another of your threads.

I responded to it there.

Why did you start a NEW thread???
____________________________________________________

Since the OP is offline, here's my post from his other thread, in response to THIS thread now, should help answer a lot of your questions/comments: www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 11 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

so nasa added false color? what does this prove? only that they added false color. and that's nothing new they have been doing it forever. all those Fancy Hubble photos you see, all false color images because well frankly its rather boring otherwise.

reply to post by EnlightenUp

To me it looks colorized just to add to the presence and was probably originally black and white or taken to black and white at some point.

No...when you go to the lpi website, you will see that all those photos were taken with a Hasselblad 70mm camera, and they all were taken with color film.

Originally posted by Aggamemnon
so nasa added false color? what does this prove? only that they added false color. and that's nothing new they have been doing it forever. all those Fancy Hubble photos you see, all false color images because well frankly its rather boring otherwise.

Some are false color because they aren't taken in RGB and sometimes not even in visible wavelengths. To make it meaningful it has to be translated into the visible spectrum.

reply to post by EnlightenUp

Some are false color because they aren't taken in RGB ...

Please note, again. This was 1972 (in the case of Apollo 17).

They did NOT take digital still cameras with them. The Hasselblads used actual film. Kodak film, I believe. Specially designed and made for NASA.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Please note, again. This was 1972 (in the case of Apollo 17).

They did NOT take digital still cameras with them. The Hasselblads used actual film. Kodak film, I believe. Specially designed and made for NASA.

I thought we had a little tangential discussion about Hubble related to false color from NASA, not about the Apollo itself. Yes, I know these were film.

Incidentally, the here is one of the lander taken with the Hasselblad 70mm camera (some in the catalog from that cam are B&W). I'm trying to locate the raw images for the panoramic composite. Nonetheless, in a straight unmanipulated color image the appearance seem quite correct with very subltle coloring whereas the panorama's look flat-out colorized.


Edit...
Looks like the panoramas are from this magazine grayscaled, stitched and recolored:
Magazine A - Images AS17-147-22451 to AS17-147-22606

That technique is kind of sloppy. If you do fine work in the luma channel and use the originals as chroma channels after stitching, the results can be far superior since high precision isn't required for the chromas but the original fine color shading can be brought back.



[edit on 9/11/2009 by EnlightenUp]

[edit on 9/11/2009 by EnlightenUp]

This is a copy of my post from this thread

Originally posted by IX-777
The most obvious object is the "bag" located at bottom of the photo to the right of the astronaut with the moon vehicle - it is close to the camera / bottom of the image. This is clearly in black and white.

It's a sample bag. They're white, regardless if it's a colour photo or a B&W one.

EDIT to add: Actually if you look at the original AS17-147-22578 photo that I have linked to further down, you'll see the sample bag has a bit more colour to it.

The same goes for several other objects in the photo - just below the wheel to the left of the astronaut is another instrument, some sort of rod sticking up from the ground, again in black and white.

That's a heat flow probe. There isn't really any colour on those either.

You do understand that objects that are white, gray/silver metal or black will look more or less the same in colour or B&W photos right? Also you should look at the original photos that were used to make these panorama's. They're a higher resolution and you can see the objects more clearly.

Secondly: Lights - Go to the right of the vehicle and you will see a red cable across the ground coming from the bottom of the image, here you can see light reflections in the lense causing flares and beams to show. Notice that there is no light source above, and the flares and light beams stops exactly where the mountains in the background ends and the black horizon comes in - obviously this should not be the case, the light beams and flares should be consistent out into the black area as well as these are lens artifacts and have nothing to do with the background. In other words, it seems to indicate strongly that the background has simply been cut out following the edges of the mountains.

Like I said above, you should look at the originals. These panoramic photos have been edited. Here are the originals that contain the lens flares (AS17-147-22578, AS17-147-22579, AS17-147-22580, AS17-147-22581, AS17-147-22582) As you can see, the lens flares are normal. I'm not sure how these panoramas were assembled, but software programs that assemble them automatically generally have issues with things like lens flares, since they change position in each frame. Which can confuse the software. They may have also been removed simply for aesthetic reasons.

Thirdly: Background repetition - the background is the EXACT same as the background of the following photo:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

These photos are supposed to be taken at different sites, yet the background is identical.

Well that would be because both panoramas are from Apollo 17 and they were taken only ~150m apart. So there isn't going to be any noticeable difference.

Also notice that there is no visible light source on the first image yet it is strongly visible in the second image...

And this is why you use the original source images and not edited panoramas...

And in regards to "duplicate backgrounds". Do you happen live in an area with mountains? I live in a valley and when I drive around town, I see very little change in there appearance when I drive a number of km from one end of town to the other.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by jra]

Enlighten up: Yes, it is a panorama created by several photos put together. I am somewhat unsure how many degrees these photos cover, but since the left side of one of the images are identical to the right side, where you can see the same mountain and the shadow of the LM, I assume it may be 360 degrees view or else I am not sure why they would add the same image on both sides.

One of the points here is that the astronaut taking the photos is located in the same position and having the light come from same direction and the lander is rather clearly almost up by the mountains in the background in one photo while on another one it is far away and close to the camera.

The background remains the same through all the degrees the photos has been taken while the foreground changes completely and leaves no signs of the same objects and geological features etc.

Also the image was not originally black and white, they used color film as Weedwhacker mentioned. Seems rather strange to first make the images black and white just to re-add colors again to me, and the person (JRA) who claims the objects I mention like the bag close to the camera looks "black and white" in its normal condition he is wrong. Here is an original image that proves the bag has colors and have been turned black and white in the photo I posted above:
NASA bag photo with colors

The photo shows the bag is colored with reddish bands across it, and the photo discussed above shows the same bag - as well as several other objects - in black and white.

Kind of funny that JRA who claimed the bag is black and white also posted the photos that disproves his own statement

And yes I come from Norway so I have lived in the mountains all my life, I am pretty familiar with how distant mountains look in relation to closer objects. Personally I think the LM in the photo where it is in distance seem to be much further away than only 150 metres, and much closer to the mountains in the back than the other image. Personally I do not feel the issues raised here have been debunked at all so far.

-Maggador

[edit on 11-9-2009 by IX-777]

Originally posted by IX-777
Kind of funny that JRA who claimed the bag is black and white also posted the photos that disproves his own statement

Yes, I've already corrected that in my post above. But my point still stands, that using the original source images is much better than using an obviously edited panoramic photo.

Originally posted by IX-777
And yes I come from Norway so I have lived in the mountains all my life, I am pretty familiar with how distant mountains look in relation to closer objects. Personally I think the LM in the photo where it is in distance seem to be much further away than only 150 metres, and much closer to the mountains in the back than the other image. Personally I do not feel the issues raised here have been debunked at all so far.

Then you are not taking into account the type of lens used. If I remember correctly, the cameras had two types of lens, one telephoto lens and a wider lens (the most common, I think only one camera had a telephoto lens, but I may be wrong, I am using only my failing memory ), and in a wide view lens we see more of the scene (and it makes it harder to make panoramas with the photos), we get more distortion out of the centre of the photo and we see things farther away than they are, just like in those convex mirrors that are used to show a wider view.

Personally, I do not see these things even as issues, only lack of familiarity with photography.

PS: I am not a photographer, but I learnt many things from my sister, and she is a professional photographer that got her degree in photography with the highest possible classification.

Here is another photo of the bag, and also you will notice in this original photo that not only does the bag have color but as far I can see two other objects there seem to be in appropriate color now
Bag, vehcile and astronaut photo

Also it is pretty clear to me that the astronaut and vehicle are rather close to the mountains here but the size have not changed and the mountains are still virtually the same in size and angle in the first two panorama photos shown in the OP even though the astronaut is all up by the foot of the hill here so to speak.

As a sidenote: Were these photos planned to be a panorama already when taken? It seems to me like the astronaut is taking the photos in such a manner that they fits this good together without much editing needed. If they were not planned to be put together as a panorama it is rather strange that they turned out to be so well aligned with eachother.

reply to post by IX-777


I linked to the original image magazine containing the individual pictures. I don't think the astronaut was too precise in where he was standing. Perhaps the intent wasn't a perfect panorama but it was close enough to be able to put it together later.

So, at each edge, the location of the photographer isn't quite the same. The view is slightly more than 360 degrees.

It was grayscaled, then edited, then recolorized. Why? Because editing and blending in full color can be next to impossible. It's easier to work with brightness only.

The sky was blacked out and in one case the sun reconstructed with a circular gradient. The originals don't have a nice matching lense flair.

Regarding professional photographers, personally I think that the guy who was developing these cameras should be fitting into the professional part. HE himself have been skeptical towards the Moon photos saying that he do not understand how these photos can have been taken without artificial lightening. Doesnt that strike you as somewhat odd, he should be an expert on such things or not?

At least I find it interesting that even the producer of the very cameras used on the mission think the photos look suspicious.

-Maggador