What I Found In NASA Photos (incliuding Kubrick)

[IZRAUL]

The moon hoax argument has been going on for a long time. And I, like many people, argued against the hoax claims. One day it dawned upon me that I hadn't even researched enough to be arguing for or against it. So I decided to do what most people who argue about it don't. I decided to do some real research and prove the hoaxers wrong. I spent months combing through the NASA's photo archives.

I examined each photo I chose for hours with different software. I zoomed in with lincosz3 capabilities, inverted colors, dabbled with monochrome and played with lightning & contrast. I found Gimp (the same software NASA uses) to be sufficient.

I had trouble in the beginning because of my bias against the hoaxers, so I let things slide because I didn't want to be wrong. I wanted to prove those other people were idiots so bad, I refused to believe what I was seeing. I had to learn to let go of my bias and approach with an open mind. I had to teach myself to observe from a neutral standpoint. That wasn't easy, but I got the hang of it. Having to accept I was wrong kinda sucked, but I ate my crow.

If you haven't put in the long hours it took to uncover this stuff, you have no business yapping. Everyone should be researching for themselves if they have an opinion or something negative to say. And no matter what you believe, these things will eventually come out. As technology & software advances, there won't be anymore more denying it. NASA will have to come clean eventually. That's just a fact.


https://photos.app.goo.gl/ihbALTzhsTyGZ15d6

[Von_Smith]

I don't see the things you are talking about in the images.  I don't see a spotlight in the first image, for example.  I see a bit of glare that is most likely the sun itself. 

How did you decide that it was a spotlight?  And why do you think it is "from below"? 

[JayUtah]

If you haven't put in the long hours it took to uncover this stuff, you have no business yapping.

I've been researching Apollo photography and the rest of the Apollo record since the early 1990s.  My work has been acknowledged in several prominent sources, including the journal Science.  Kindly don't try to intimidate me or the other regulars with descriptions of playing around with the sliders in a free Photoshop clone and pretending that constitutes some sort of detailed or professional examination.

In your first photo you claim a spotlight was used.  You identify no evidence of a spotlight.  You literally just reproduce a well-known photograph and offer a naked assertion about it, then go on to suggest that anyone who doesn't believe you must be "gullible."  Even more laughable, you mistake the Earth for the Sun.  Had you really done any sort of research on this photo, you'd have discovered it was taken precisely to try to get the flag and the Earth in the same shot.  And since when has the Sun appeared in phases in photographs?  You need to do much better than that.

In your second photo you claim nine people are reflected in the astronaut's visor.  You do not identify what features of the photo you believe are the reflections of people.  Nor do you say what you did to confirm they were reflections of people rather than other things.

In your third photo, you simply draw circles around areas of the image without saying what about them you find remarkable or problematic.

[Obviousman]

The claims kinda remind me of the Jack White lunacy. Maybe he's been reincarnated?

[AtomicDog]

The claims kinda remind me of the Jack White lunacy. Maybe he's been reincarnated?

They remind of this song:

"and they took twenty-seven 8 x 10 colored 
Glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of 
Each one explainin' what each one was, to be used as evidence against us
Took pictures of the approach, the getaway, the northwest corner, the 
Southwest corner
And that's not to mention the aerial photography!"

- Arlo Guthrie, Alice's Restaurant Massacree

[JayUtah]

The claims kinda remind me of the Jack White lunacy. Maybe he's been reincarnated?

Not recognizing the difference between the Earth and the Sun is idiocy well on par with Jack White's legendary ineptness.  Does anyone recall if White himself made these specific claims?  Could they just have been copied from White's material?

I went to the linked photo album.  Utterly stupid claims.

[AtomicDog]

The claims kinda remind me of the Jack White lunacy. Maybe he's been reincarnated?

Not recognizing the difference between the Earth and the Sun is idiocy well on par with Jack White's legendary ineptness.  Does anyone recall if White himself made these specific claims?  Could they just have been copied from White's material?

I went to the linked photo album.  Utterly stupid claims.

My god, he thought that was the SUN?

[JayUtah]

Yep.  Look at the top of the first attached photo.  He points an arrow to the Earth, clearly in a slightly gibbous phase and clearly a blue textured object, and claims it's the Sun.  This is the level of genius we're dealing with.

[Peter B]

G'day Izraul and welcome to the forum.

I went to the link you included in your post. Sorry, not particularly convincing.

For example, the second photo on the top row shows an astronaut saluting, with the flag to the right. Then you reckon the reflection in the astronaut's helmet is a person. This raises the obvious question - if that reflection is a person, then where's the reflection of the flag? (Hint: the reflection in the helmet is the flag.)

This is sort of like the people who claim that the bright light they saw in the sky was a UFO. When they deny that the light is Venus, the obvious question is, "Well, where was Venus?"

Oh, and nobody claims astronauts broadcast anything from the Moon with a photographic camera. Just sayin'.

I see your checkmate and raise you a Golden Duck (or a Golden Sombrero, if baseball's your thing).

[sts60]

Hello, Izraul.  Welcome to the board.

...If you haven't put in the long hours it took to uncover this stuff, you have no business yapping.

I’ve spent almost thirty years working on space systems.  I’ve spent more time on console during actual space missions then you have playing with Gimp.

...Everyone should be researching for themselves if they have an opinion or something negative to say...

The end result of your “research” is that you pointed to an image of what is very obviously the Earth and identified it as the Sun.

Would you care to take a deep breath and start over?

[onebigmonkey]

Weird, because when I Iook at the photos carefully using software that NASA uses (Photoshop, not GIMP) I find that the evidence in them, such as small rocks and craters not known about at the time but subsequently confirmed by modern probes, or the astronomically and meteorologically correct images of Earth that could only gave been taken during the mission timeline from locations off Earth, absolutely confirm the Apollo narrative

Your move I guess.

[onebigmonkey]

Oh, and your remark about you putting the hours in is highly presumptive. You're assuming that you are truly special and that no-one else has put the hours in that you have. There's a term for that, and it starts with bull.

[onebigmonkey]

Apologies for spamming, but I'm phone posting so it's easier than editing.

To be fair to the OP I think he's pointing at Earth (the astronomically and meteorigically correct one) as a way of illustrating the direction from which the sunlight is coming.

The fact that he can't fathom out why the sun's reflection is where it is on the curved helmet glass shows the lack of 3D spatial awareness that is fairly typical of the HB mindset.

[Jason Thompson]

I examined each photo I chose for hours with different software. I zoomed in with lincosz3 capabilities, inverted colors, dabbled with monochrome and played with lightning & contrast. I found Gimp (the same software NASA uses) to be sufficient.

Why do you think this makes for a valid analysis? Where did you obtain the images you 'analysed'? Did you go to the original film? Or to the fuly hi-res scans now available? Did you research the type of camera used and the resultant expected artifacts such as lens flares that would result from the optical system? Did you research the environment the images were taken in to find out how it should appear?

I had trouble in the beginning because of my bias against the hoaxers, so I let things slide because I didn't want to be wrong. I wanted to prove those other people were idiots so bad, I refused to believe what I was seeing. I had to learn to let go of my bias and approach with an open mind. I had to teach myself to observe from a neutral standpoint. That wasn't easy, but I got the hang of it. Having to accept I was wrong kinda sucked, but I ate my crow.

Oh how often we have heard that. Usually followed, as in this case, by the most superficial of 'analyses' that clearly do not have the depth required to draw defensible conclusions.
 

If you haven't put in the long hours it took to uncover this stuff, you have no business yapping. Everyone should be researching for themselves if they have an opinion or something negative to say.

If you had taken the time to look into this forum you would know that most of the people here have literally spent years researching for themselves. One is a recognised authority on the subject, has his own website and has made appearances on documentataries. One is a published author on the subject of the television used on Apollo.
 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/ihbALTzhsTyGZ15d6

This is such a poor analysis it's hardly worth debunking. However, without even trying I can see you have failed to identify the sources of your images. For example you point to an apparent anomaly in the position of the sun and the light shining on the mountains, but fail to recognise the image as a stitched-together panorama from several images (despite the obvious bundaries). You point to the image of Alan Bean with two astronaits in the visor reflection and insist NASA edited out the second astronaut in the other image, but have failed to account for where the images came from. What is your evidence that the one with two astronauts in is the original? In fact that's a well-known 'spoof' image with a badly photoshopped in second astronaut.

In short your 'analysis' is nothing of the sort, and has more holes than swiss cheese.



[/quote]

[Von_Smith]

Yep.  Look at the top of the first attached photo.  He points an arrow to the Earth, clearly in a slightly gibbous phase and clearly a blue textured object, and claims it's the Sun.  This is the level of genius we're dealing with.

Seriously?  I gave him too much credit.  I thought he was just pointing at the Earth's phase to suggest what the sun's angle was supposed to be.  And then suggesting that there is  spotlight at a different angle.