ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Read Think Repeat on April 04, 2019, 01:34:20 AM
-
In AS16-114-18387 the visor displays a reflection with the proper orientation of the astroNot's hands. But in AS16-114-18388, as if the visor can channel the astroNot's mind, we get instead a more suggestive image. The astroNot reflected in the visor in 18388 is just about ready to pounce or something. Or is he offering up a massage?! "Why, yes, I could use a massage. A little lower, please..."
Apollo, a criminal joke.
"Ignorance is Strength." I'm weak.
-
Read Think Repeat,
Seen it before. Put it in a photo editor. Remix the contrast and you will see the gloves are oriented right. So far all your examples are sub par. And I am on your team.
-
The astroNot reflected in the visor in 18388 is just about ready to pounce or something.
Incoherent babble. Obvious troll is obvious.
-
Put it in a photo editor.
Second time you've invoked this without being able to explain what that means.
Remix the contrast...
That's not a thing.
-
Hi Jay,
I was trying to keep it simple by using "remix the contrast". But if you want to get techinical, how about contrast and brightness, or if you want to get real professional "adjusting the curves" or "dodging and burning".
-
"On your team"?
I thought you were just asking questions and 99% sure the missions were genuine?
Is the new guy making the hoax movement look stupid? It was managing to do that just fine without him.
-
Hi Jay,
I was trying to keep it simple by using "remix the contrast". But if you want to get techinical, how about contrast and brightness, or if you want to get real professional "adjusting the curves" or "dodging and burning".
If you want to get technical, how about addressing the open questions on your own thread, rather than feed this incredibly obvious troll?
-
This is a perfect example of somebody manufacturing an impossible problem and claiming it proves a hoax. I ask the fairly obvious question, how was this accomplished on Earth and why this demonstrates it wasn't on the Moon?
-
Hi Jay,
I was trying to keep it simple by using "remix the contrast". But if you want to get techinical, how about contrast and brightness, or if you want to get real professional "adjusting the curves" or "dodging and burning".
These terms are only "real professional" to people who have zero knowledge or experience in photography. Dodging and burning has been around since the early days of photographic development. So we can add photography to the list of things that you have little or no experience in.
-
"On your team"?
I thought you were just asking questions and 99% sure the missions were genuine?
Is the new guy making the hoax movement look stupid? It was managing to do that just fine without him.
I picked up on that too!!
-
I was trying to keep it simple...
Why would you do that? The people here don't need you trying to dumb things down for them. On nearly every topic you've raised, the regulars here have shown themselves far more informed and capable than you. If anything you should be trying to provide more detail.
...by using "remix the contrast".
"Remixing the contrast" is neither a simplification nor a reference to any valid technique in image analysis. Methinks you're trying to use technical-sounding words to convince the reader you actually know something about this. Your history here has shown a willingness to bluff about such things.
But if you want to get techinical...
It's not a matter of want. Image analysis is by nature a technical subject -- a highly mathematical one, as well as a careful one if it is for forensic purposes. Your advice, as it stands, boils down to randomly applying software processes to an image. That's not how it works.
how about contrast and brightness...
Which of the several available algorithms for "contrast" and "brightness"? Linear transformations? Higher-order transformations? If the latter, are you recomputing the gamma? You haven't told us what you're looking for and how such a transformation would help determine it.
...or if you want to get real professional...
Do you have any professional qualifications in image analysis or photographic interpretation? I highly doubt you do, so maybe talking down to others isn't a good strategy here.
"adjusting the curves"
Okay, this is getting closer to a useful technique. Adjusting response curves for what portion of the histogram? What degree of adjustment? What order of adjustment? What would you do to determine that?
or "dodging and burning".
Dodging and burning are artistic techniques. They have no place in image analysis.
-
If you want to get technical, how about addressing the open questions on your own thread, rather than feed this incredibly obvious troll?
Indeed. It's obvious he has no answers there. The fortuitous arrival of our latest troll has provided him with the distraction he sought all day yesterday when he was hell-bent on social engineering.
-
So we can add photography to the list of things that you have little or no experience in.
And photo analysis, which is related to but different than photography. More disturbingly, we can add it to the list of things Jr Knowing knows little about, but doesn't hesitate to pontificate upon. Not knowing something is one thing. Pretending you do, and talking down to others about it, is something else.
-
"On your team"?
I thought you were just asking questions and 99% sure the missions were genuine?
Motte argument: "I'm on your team."
Bailey argument: "I'm 99% sure the missions were real; I'm just asking questions."
-
"On your team"?
I thought you were just asking questions and 99% sure the missions were genuine?
Motte argument: "I'm on your team."
Bailey argument: "I'm 99% sure the missions were real; I'm just asking questions."
I suspect jr. would fall into the category of of the majority of hoax believers so full of themselves that even if it was possible to take them to the moon today and show them everything left behind including the ALSEP's, Apollo 16 UV telescope, footprints and impact craters from the LM ascent stages they would still dismiss it all as irrelevant and go on about how it could of all been staged during the decades since the last Apollo mission.
-
Hi Jay,
I was trying to keep it simple by using "remix the contrast". But if you want to get techinical, how about contrast and brightness, or if you want to get real professional "adjusting the curves" or "dodging and burning".
Ah yes. The "poke the sliders you do not understand until you get something you like" school of photo analysis. Jr. Knowing, that simply holds no water, at all. If it did work as a method, one could prove every photo ever taken to be fake.
Tell you what, Jr. Provide any photo you know to be real and I will "poke the sliders" and prove it fake.
-
Indeed, I return to what I often say: Owning a copy of Photoshop makes you an image analyst in the same way that owning a chisel makes you Michelangelo.
-
Hi Jay,
I was trying to keep it simple by using "remix the contrast". But if you want to get techinical, how about contrast and brightness, or if you want to get real professional "adjusting the curves" or "dodging and burning".
Ah yes. The "poke the sliders you do not understand until you get something you like" school of photo analysis. Jr. Knowing, that simply holds no water, at all. If it did work as a method, one could prove every photo ever taken to be fake.
Tell you what, Jr. Provide any photo you know to be real and I will "poke the sliders" and prove it fake.
Sounds like a Jack White procedure from what I've read.
-
I’m sorry for reviving this for a bit, but I have a question that’s been bugging me a bit.
OP brought up these two pictures that I decided to look at for a bit. OP focused more on the position the astronaut was in, but I’m more focused on the visor reflection. In the visor reflection you have his hands (which I know are oriented correctly) but he also has a blue bag sort of thing that’s directly under his hands. I’ve been trying to look at this correctly, but I’m not sure where the blue bag object is reflected on his visor. Or maybe it’s too low to be reflected on his visor? I think it’s more that my expectations are incorrect, but I’m expecting a blue bag-like object directly under his hands in the reflection.
If it is simply too low to be reflected, then shouldn’t that mean that his hands should be at the bottom of the visor?
-
Here’s the picture I’m referring to
-
I think you have to look at the position of the thumbs to see what proportion of the pouch is visible, and bear in mind that the visor is tinted. In the visor the left thumb (as we see it) is close to the bottom of the visor, in real life it is at the top of the pouch, so we wouldn't necessarily see all of it. That said the curve of the visor might allow you to see all of it. I fiddled around with the colour and contrast and sharpening and I believe I can make it out, but its inconclusive.
-
Owning a copy of Photoshop makes you an image analyst in the same way that owning a chisel makes you Michelangelo.
Which is very generous, most Hoaxers use that chisel and think they are Rembrandt...
-
So you take a photo off of the internet, a JPG compressed file? Which is only a small fraction of the actual picture? Do you think it's just for s*its and giggles, modern cameras produce RAW-files greater than 20 Mbyte? And what is the size of your "suspect" JPG? EVERY TIME you "poke the sliders", you aren't discovering new picture info - you are discarding parts of the picture instead.
If your picture was a bas relief, your method is equal to taking a belt sander and grinding it down to "discover" flat areas.