Examine this photo and explain how the lunar lander can be seen "in front" of the cross-hair of the camera. Obviously, a touched up photo...
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/nasa10.gif
2006-09-22 16:19:20 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Bah, it's simple light refraction... The crossplots are applied to the film - before the image is taken... The film was contorted during development, it appears like the lander is in front, but that is actually just a smudge... Those crosses are actually the freakish forms they found on the surface, and are there to investigate... ???
It's weird, I'll admit. The photo may have been 'adjusted' after development, to make it more appealing for publication. I think the US would be pretty hesitant to fake a lunar mission after all the original conspiracy lurking around the initial moon landing.
It would be cool (in a bad bad way) for Russia (or whoever) to send something out to the exact co-ordinates where these things are supposed to be, and find the place deserted. How would they explain that!
2006-09-22 16:36:57 · answer #1 · answered by frouste 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Simple:
Symbology is added electronically to a picture. At the pixel level, software needs to decide what value to set the pixel to, either that of the original image, or that of the symbol. Since the white part of the image appears in front of the cross hair, it may be that any raw image pixel greater than some value (e.g. white) is preserved, but lesser valued pixels (grey, black) are replaced by the value of the symbol (cross-hair).
Of course its a touched up photo. Did you think that cross hairs exist on the surface of the moon? Once the decision is made to add a cross-hair, the next decision is how to do it.
When whatching TV, there are all sorts of news crawls along the bottom of the image. This is an example of a 'touched up' video stream, yet no one suggests a conspiracy.
Another possibility is that the crosshair was originally located on top of the white area, but subsequent image processing removed it in that area, creating the perception that the lander is in front of the crosshair.
2006-09-22 23:41:35 · answer #2 · answered by Guru 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Even if it was touched up to make it look better for publishing, so what?
It's amazing how far conspiracy theorists will go in order to selectively pick some fact and ignore others in order to prove a delusion to be true.
.........................................
One of the most frequent questions I am asked is how can the cross hairs that are etched onto the camera lens appear to be behind an object in the photo?
Does this prove that the photos have been staged?
If you were to ask a photographer, they would suggest that the bright reflection of the white object has overpowered the dark fine cross hair because of intensity of the reflected light. Not convinced? Then take a look at the following images.
The image above shows how a bright object can obscure a finer dark line on a lens: Thanks to Ian William Goddards suggestion.
Still not convinced then take a look at the image below taken from Apollo 17, in this case the object is neither in front nor behind the cross hair. How can this be? In my opinion this image shows that bright objects can obscure the cross hairs. If you don't agree then please send me a photo in which a darker object obsures a cross hair.
2006-09-22 23:35:15 · answer #3 · answered by Randy G 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Honestly, even if they did fake the moon landing.. who cares? we can get there now... the only reason they might have faked it is because we were in competition with the Russians, and JFK put hope into Americans again after giving them a dream of going to the moon. If all they did was take a fake picture, and that gave hope to the people again, then I can;t see how it's hardly that bad. There are worse things out there than a phony picture.
2006-09-22 23:30:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
So what? There are a bout a bazzillion falsely doctored photos out there. I can do it with my adobe photoshop easily and I don't know hardly anything about that stuff. People make these things all the time and it doesn't necessarily come from NASA itself.
2006-09-22 23:30:43 · answer #5 · answered by Mark M 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You'd need a whole lot more proof than that meager morsel. The resolution is so low as to not be able to say anything about that photo...You must have watched Capricorn 1.
2006-09-22 23:29:11 · answer #6 · answered by knujefp 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, I never could get it to load. Quick note, brought up by Phil Plait, why would the go back and add a cross hair afterwards? Its just stupid. Anyway, read it all here:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#crosshairs
2006-09-23 06:04:52 · answer #7 · answered by gismo_28 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this would be a lie of satanic proportions.
to any poster (anyone really...) who thinks the world became a better place because of false hope (AKA PROPAGANDA) then ur sadly in for a world of shock when the joke has been placed on you.
open eyes will be the eyes towards progress and lies by the government here in the u.s. may have built us up to WAYYYYYYY to much.
besides, how can we build something so advanced to break the radiation belt when U.S. car factories can't even compete with KOREA?!?!
yea i said it, american cars suck and american spaceships probably suck in comparison to what the chinese have ready to go.
2006-09-23 01:22:32 · answer #8 · answered by sparkloom 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wow..!! Just one doctored photograph and you've totally changed my mind. How can we ever repay you?
Now I'm starting an even more ridiculous conspiracy theory -- the Earth is flat and the moon itself is a NASA hoax.
Signed ---
The Tooth Fairy
2006-09-23 00:28:25 · answer #9 · answered by Chug-a-Lug 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I spent 4 years at Gitmo for saying that the US faked the moon landing - they finally let me go and I've been followed by Israeli art students ever since.
Whether the landing was real or faked - ask yourself why the US hasn't returned to the moon in 34 years?
2006-09-22 23:21:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋