ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: ChrLz on December 26, 2013, 04:37:02 AM
-
I note this is being bandied around on other forums, and leaped upon by NASA haters and the last few Apollo deniers:
Daily Mail article/fantasy (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2528936/One-small-click-man-Nasa-releases-17-000-photos-Apollo-program-including-rare-shots-mission-13.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490)
It *sounds* as though NASA has been sitting on many images and has suddenly released them - yet no linkbacks, no source... I think it is just a badly worded beat up - and the numbers don't make sense either way - from Apollo 4-17 there were 19000 images just taken on the Hasselblads...
I can't find any source for this - I think some 'reporter' may have just made it all up (or perhaps suddenly discovered the LPI website...). Or are there in fact some new images that have been released? I was pretty sure all of Apollo was on the public record and mostly had been from day one..
-
Working from the assumption of incompetence before malice, I'll go for a variant of your LPI discovery theory: the reporter watches the Apollo 8 Earthrise photo sim, goes to NASA's website to find out more, stumbles on the LPI gallery and assumes it was somehow related to the release of the Apollo 8 sim. I've previously seen most of the images presented in the DM story, so I find it hard to believe that those I'm not familiar with have somehow been suppressed until now (yes, I know, argument from incredulity...).
-
Thanks, Peter. I've now looked as hard as I can (well, in 30 minutes or so :) ) and found absolutely nothing about any new release other than that Earthrise video - nothing on the LPI site or in their news archives, not a single link anywhere that doesn't lead back to the Daily Fail...
-
Ah, esteemed English journalism. Over here in the Colonies, we just have to make do with civic mayors (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/2013-in-review-rob-ford-s-rollercoaster-year-1.2475917) for our quality, um, news.
-
I was confused as well and suspected the journalist just didn't know what he was talking about.
-
... the journalist just didn't know what he was talking about.
It's the Daily Mail; That goes without saying.
-
Oh! Dear!
The Daily Mail?
I like their crossword!
But for news, you might as well read the Ankh-Morpork Times.
JohnB
Sloop
-
I agree with the OP. It very much looks to me like this journalist has just "discovered" the LPI website.
Perhaps someone should sent him a link to the ALSJ. This "newly released" ::) information would really blow his mind!
-
Related:
-
I think it is just hi-res on the LPI site; the LPI had all the images but most were low-res scans; the Project Apollo Archive did the majority of hi-res scans that were available; it seems that the LPI has now also done hi-res scans.
-
Related:
Just wow!!!
Did I hear that guy right? 60ft by 20ft at 72 dpi
By my quick calculation, that is nearly 900 megapixels!!
-
Related:
Just wow!!!
Did I hear that guy right? 60ft by 20ft at 72 dpi
By my quick calculation, that is nearly 900 megapixels!!
I haven't looked at the vid (not much bandwidth left, too lazy to recharge today!) but that calculation doesn't sound right - 60ft x 20ft x 72 ppi is only about 12.5Mp (60x12x20x12x72=12,441,600)
-
Related:
Just wow!!!
Did I hear that guy right? 60ft by 20ft at 72 dpi
By my quick calculation, that is nearly 900 megapixels!!
I haven't looked at the vid (not much bandwidth left, too lazy to recharge today!) but that calculation doesn't sound right - 60ft x 20ft x 72 ppi is only about 12.5Mp (60x12x20x12x72=12,441,600)
No. The calculation for megapixels is the number of pixels along the long side multiplied by the number of pixels along the short side e.g.
a 3000 pixel x 2000 pixel image is 6,000,000 pixels or 6 megapixels (essentially you have 2000 rows of 3000 pixels each)
60 ft by 20 ft image at 72 ppi is
60 x 12 x 72 = 51,840 pixels by 20 x 12 x 72 = 17,280 pixels
51,840 x 17,280 = 895,795,200 pixels, or 896 megapixels.
-
No. The calculation for megapixels is the number of pixels along the long side multiplied by the number of pixels along the short side e.g.
You are absolutely correct - I stoopidly left out a x72 in my calculation - should know better than to post just after waking up... :D
-
No. The calculation for megapixels is the number of pixels along the long side multiplied by the number of pixels along the short side e.g.
You are absolutely correct - I stoopidly left out a x72 in my calculation - should know better than to post just after waking up... :D
Well, just to satisfy my own curiosity, I tried to create an 896 MP image in Photoshop. I can't get these actual dimensions because 30,000 pixels for any dimension is the limit in my PS7, so I went with 29940 x 29940 which works out to around 896 MP.
It creates an uncompressed .TIF file of 2.5 GB. No wonder the only way they could store it it was on tape!!
-
Related:
"Behind me I have a decommissioned nuclear warhead."
Interesting. I wonder if he could possibly mean a decommissioned ICBM? If so, I'm thinking they might have a spot for him at the Daily News.
-
It's a Titan 1 missile at NASA Ames RC. Been there, done that ;)
-
I know, I just think it's sad when someone reporting on space-related news evidently doesn't know the difference between a launcher and a payload/warhead. :)
-
The Daily Wail? Its a total rag
-
The Wail will like to scare the world witless. They like scare headlines and take umbrage with many things and trumpet that from the roof tops.
They make good chip paper though.
-
The Waily Fail consistently gets science wrong.
That Dan & Dan song always makes me giggle :)
I like this. http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/
-
The Wail will like to scare the world witless. They like scare headlines and take umbrage with many things and trumpet that from the roof tops.
They make good chip paper though.
Sounds like the Young Turks; make up something offensive and then howl your indignation.
-
I like this. http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/
Ha ha ha ha..... titter.... oh er missis...
From the link
"WILL FACEBOOK KILL YOUR PETS?"