Author Topic: What I Found In NASA Photos (incliuding Kubrick)  (Read 2002 times)

Offline jfb

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
Re: What I Found In NASA Photos (incliuding Kubrick)
« Reply #15 on: August 25, 2019, 07:29:45 AM »
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.

Not to give the guy credit, but I don’t think he’s claiming it’s the Sun.  He’s claiming that the Earth is being illuminated from a particular angle, but the astronaut appears to be illuminated from a different angle - thus, spotlight.

He’s still wrong, he’s just not that wrong.

As for the other images - if you play with digital images enough (especially highly compressed ones posted to the Web), you can find all kinds of compression artifacts that look like “something”.  I certainly don’t see nine people reflected in a visor (I frankly have no clue what he’s seeing to give that impression).

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2885
Re: What I Found In NASA Photos (incliuding Kubrick)
« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2019, 07:42:06 AM »
In your second image, I went to ALSJ which contain the high resolution images of all the Apollo images.
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/

AS17-134-20452 (OF300) ( 124k or 744k )
168:47:03 Station 9. Jack mounting LRV, sunstruck.

Found the image and I don't see 9 people in the visor, just a poor copy of the image.
This appears to be JAQ and using Jack White's material(IIRC).
You should not use his work as it contains many errors one of which I indicated.

I have only been doing this type of analysis, but you should be prepared to defend your arguments with the people here who have been doing this a lot longer than I.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline sts60

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
Re: What I Found In NASA Photos (incliuding Kubrick)
« Reply #17 on: August 25, 2019, 09:49:07 AM »
Several of you have pointed out that in his first attached image, the OP is probably pointing at the Earth to show a presumed Sun angle, not actually claiming it is the Sun.  I agree. 

Izraul, I withdraw my earlier statement that you misidentified the Earth for the Sun.

In one of your linked images, however, you showed a picture from Earth orbit to show the size of the Moon as seen from Earth, then you showed a picture of the earth and moon clearly taken from a spacecraft quite distant from the Moon and identified it as being a picture of the Earth as seen from the Moon.

My original point stands: would you like  to take a deep breath and start over?

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3180
    • Clavius
Re: What I Found In NASA Photos (incliuding Kubrick)
« Reply #18 on: August 25, 2019, 10:25:07 AM »
Several of you have pointed out that in his first attached image, the OP is probably pointing at the Earth to show a presumed Sun angle, not actually claiming it is the Sun.  I agree.

I'll certainly accept that as a possible interpretation of the label in the first attached photo.  But I'm not withdrawing my response until he comes back to confirm that was his intent.  As I wrote initially, he provides little rationale or line of reasoning for any of his claims.  Therefore I do not accept responsibility for the result of such ambiguity.  Forcing one's critics to ferret out what one means, and then chastising them for their density when they get it wrong, is part of the hoax claimant's game.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1507
Re: What I Found In NASA Photos (incliuding Kubrick)
« Reply #19 on: August 25, 2019, 10:55:54 AM »
Let's just take a couple of these and see if the OP would actually care to address the obvious flaws. Let's start here:

https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOj5syxGtZ97KgUNGo_2C0lqAZ3-qGCX-sP4jsrzN1pLNR88SZfkUpNps3gybuIeA/photo/AF1QipMbfZmA5_4OgpRqXr76l6GfzbmAIHGhXh6H06gA?key=SUhhVXExU19VbGdBQi1jbjk1VUJMbXcxN2dOdy1R

Just the comparison on the left, how exactly do you justify the claim that the lower image is of the Earth from the Moon when it clearly has the Moon in it? It has clearly been taken from some distance behind the Moon, not 'from the Moon'. In fact the exact providence of that image, including how far away the satellite that took it was, is available. Did you bother to look that information up, and the consider what effect that would have on the apparent relative sizes of the two objects? We've seen this claim before, from someone who couldn't understand that the Moon could ever look smaller than the Earth if it was between the Earth and the photographer.

In the second set of images, how do you justify the claim that the Earth looks '6x smaller' than the Moon?

Now how about this:

https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOj5syxGtZ97KgUNGo_2C0lqAZ3-qGCX-sP4jsrzN1pLNR88SZfkUpNps3gybuIeA/photo/AF1QipNxPK-SoZqQgnS5EUhi63lZbKdi43n9YFc8xqu3?key=SUhhVXExU19VbGdBQi1jbjk1VUJMbXcxN2dOdy1R

Justify the claim that the image with two astronauts in the reflection is the original. It is quite clear that one of the astronauts has been added in later. In fact this is a well-known 'spoof' image. Secondly, explain why you go on to show another 'analysis' of this image but use the one with only one astronaut relfected.

Your explanations need to include:

1: Why NASA edited out the second astronaut but didn't correct any of the other flaws.
2: Why there would ever even be a second astronaut to be reflected when they are supposedly trying to sell the story that only two astronauts landed on the Moon at any one time.

You also need to explain why your 'analysis' fails in most cases to even identify which image is being used. Every single one had an indentity number. No serious analyst would leave those off, unless he was trying to make it harder for his critics to go and find the images themselves to do their own work and see if they draw the same conclusions.

In short, you need to go back to the drawing board and learn what actual anlaysis entails if you expect to be taken seriously as an analyst.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 11:00:46 AM by Jason Thompson »
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1841
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: What I Found In NASA Photos (incliuding Kubrick)
« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2019, 11:36:12 AM »
Honestly?  It doesn't take that much study to know that the hoax claims don't stand up.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3180
    • Clavius
Re: What I Found In NASA Photos (incliuding Kubrick)
« Reply #21 on: August 25, 2019, 12:34:52 PM »
Weird, because when I Iook at the photos carefully using software that NASA uses (Photoshop, not GIMP)...

In practice, both.  The NASA centers I have personal knowledge of are chiefly Apple shops.  And they do use Adobe products, since they are a de facto standard.  But there was also a pretty big investment in Gentoo Linux, especially for their high-performance (i.e., non-desktop) computing.  Since The GIMP is free and often distributed as part of many Linux distributions, there is no reason it cannot be used at NASA.

The more pertinent question is which toolchain was used to operate on the photos our poster has chosen.  The answer is likely any or all available.  As others have pointed out, most of the photos seem to have come from various convenience sources in various places on the web.  Some of them clearly are from Jack White, viz. the ones in which features are circled with ellipses (a Jack White hallmark).  Unless one is able to undo or control for the effects of previous manipulations, there is almost nothing of probative value to be extracted by subsequent raster-style image manipulation.

The advantage in using The GIMP is that it's an open-source tool.  If there's ever any question about what some particular feature accomplishes, one can turn to the source code to get a definitive answer.  To know what Adobe Photoshop is doing, one often has to search through their documentation.  And then trust that the code actually conforms to it.  For example, our OP says one of the things he did was to use "monochrome," by which I understand he converted the image to monochrome to test some particular hypothesis.  But desaturating a color image for forensic purposes is non-trivial.  The math easy enough in principle, but the math is necessarily parameterized in ways that compel the investigator to make choices that bear on the validity of the final result to his desired outcome.

Black-and-white photographers were well acquainted with the use of color filters to control which actual wavelengths of light the film sees.  If you use a deep red filter, for example, the blue of the sky doesn't penetrate and thus the sky areas of the photo will be dark.  Digital photos are almost always already quantized to supply only some wavelength -- relative intensities in certain preselected wavelengths of red, green, and blue.  This approximates the energies in the spectrum of the original image.  A tuple of the coefficients that apply to each wavelength represents what is stored as the approximation of color for some spot in the image, some pixel.  Those coefficients can be transformed into a further reduction to some smaller color space, but there's no One True Wavelength that represents a meaningful monochromatic version of the image.  Assuming we start from a triple of red, green, and blue intensity coefficients, the reduction is typically expressed as further weights on those coefficients.  The academic literature provides a number of good choices for those weights, but one would have to go into the computer code to see which ones were used and therefore whether the wavelengths represented in the resulting data are appropriate to what you need.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1092
Re: What I Found In NASA Photos (incliuding Kubrick)
« Reply #22 on: August 25, 2019, 01:10:39 PM »
Educational video for the OP


Offline Trebor

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
Re: What I Found In NASA Photos (incliuding Kubrick)
« Reply #23 on: August 25, 2019, 04:57:35 PM »
I've looked at the photos he highlighted and really have absolutely no idea what he is on about.
Its a mystery.

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1398
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: What I Found In NASA Photos (incliuding Kubrick)
« Reply #24 on: August 26, 2019, 05:44:11 AM »
It seems unlikely our OP will return, I think he's happy that he's proved what idiots we all are and has ridden off into the sunset cackling at the superiority of his genius, but just in case...

The Apollo 17 image he starts with is based on what he thinks is a spotlight, not the sun, in the wrong place.

The visor is a mirror image of reality, and it's also curved, so what happens if you reverse the image and make the horizon in it horizontal?



The mountains in the left of the image are in the north. That would make the area on the right hand side the east. The 'spotlight' is above that horizon. See if you can have a guess where the sun would be at about 01:20 on 12/12/72 in the lunar sky, go on, guess...
« Last Edit: August 26, 2019, 05:58:08 AM by onebigmonkey »

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3180
    • Clavius
Re: What I Found In NASA Photos (incliuding Kubrick)
« Reply #25 on: August 26, 2019, 11:11:56 AM »
Agreed:  unlikely to return.  Registered in 2017, then two seagull posts and gone.  I've never been able to understand that sort of thing.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline stutefish

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: What I Found In NASA Photos (incliuding Kubrick)
« Reply #26 on: August 29, 2019, 03:36:12 PM »
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.

I took him to be pointing at the gibbous Earth and extrapolating a line perpendicular to the terminator, pointing to a sun somewhere out of frame.

Offline MBDK

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
Re: What I Found In NASA Photos (incliuding Kubrick)
« Reply #27 on: August 29, 2019, 10:24:50 PM »
I took him to be pointing at the gibbous Earth and extrapolating a line perpendicular to the terminator, pointing to a sun somewhere out of frame.
I read his post AND looked at his linked page.  From the convoluted and seemingly uneducated conclusions he made, I cannot find any reason to assume he has made ANY logical notations.
"Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy." - Lord John Whorfin

Online Obviousman

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 471
Re: What I Found In NASA Photos (incliuding Kubrick)
« Reply #28 on: August 30, 2019, 04:46:35 AM »
A seagull poster, also known as a mudguard.

Offline Kiwi

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
Re: What I Found In NASA Photos (incliuding Kubrick)
« Reply #29 on: August 30, 2019, 10:13:28 AM »
I read his post AND looked at his linked page.  From the convoluted and seemingly uneducated conclusions he made, I cannot find any reason to assume he has made ANY logical notations.

Nor can I.

Izraul appears to be stunningly ignorant of basic photographic principles, can't tell a reflection from a light source, seems unable to recognise a panorama when it's staring him in the face, sounds incredulous that a 360 degree panorama has both up-sun and down-sun views, can't understand the reflections in a semi-spherical spacesuit visor, probably doesn't know the difference between a spotlight, a floodlight and sunlight, has few clues about what happened on the moon, has a severe case of pareidolia, "analyses" photos that are probably a few generations removed from the originals, and makes up things about the shapes, colours and blotches that were produced by his zooming, inverting, dabbling and playing.

He needs to read Bob Dylan's quote at the bottom of this post and leave photo-analysis to those who are competent.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2019, 10:25:57 AM by Kiwi »
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)