Here is your chance.

this is one of the more famous pictures of the Apollo 11 landings. now most FErs seem to be experts in spotting Photoshoped photos, edited or just plane faked.
so hear is your chance.

please for the moment don't debate bash or argue about each others answers. i would just like you to simply put yes or no you think something is wrong and what about the photo is photoshoped edited or wrong  etc. we will debate each others answers tomorrow after we get a few answers in.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/687/as1140586369.jpg/

this is a much bigger photo for you to have a close up proper look at in more detail.


P.S RErs join in as well

Where is this headed?  We don't have to poke holes in literally every single picture to prove that there's a conspiracy.

Where is this headed?  We don't have to poke holes in literally every single picture to prove that there's a conspiracy.

Actually, that's exactly what you have to do.

im just trying to gauge people perceptions of what they think is fake and what isnt its only one photo dont take part if you dont want to.

First of all, the Sun has a halo.

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on February 16, 2013, 11:03:25 AM

Where is this headed?  We don't have to poke holes in literally every single picture to prove that there's a conspiracy.

Actually, that's exactly what you have to do.

I don't see any reason to believe that there would be detectable flaws in every single picture NASA fakes.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I don't think I can pinpoint any specific flaws in that picture.

Secondly, the lunar lander looks like it's collapsing due to the dummy or real person in a suit laid on it.

How can a camera with no filter on it, take a picture of direct sun and also get in a crisp shot of the lander and it's surroundings that should be in shadow.
The dummy or astronaut should be in dark shadow, yet explain the camera and direct sun?

First of all, the Sun has a halo.

Yes, yes it does.

Secondly, the lunar lander looks like it's collapsing due to the dummy or real person in a suit laid on it.

Not really.

How can a camera with no filter on it

What? Oh YEAH I forgot you were there on the moon with them and saw the camera they used.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 16, 2013, 12:01:37 PM

First of all, the Sun has a halo.

Yes, yes it does.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 16, 2013, 12:04:10 PM

Secondly, the lunar lander looks like it's collapsing due to the dummy or real person in a suit laid on it.

Not really.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 16, 2013, 12:07:30 PM

How can a camera with no filter on it

What? Oh YEAH I forgot you were there on the moon with them and saw the camera they used.

Clearly stumped for answers. ...verdict. Bullshit. 

I can't hear "is your chance" >:.

I can't hear "is your chance" >:.

Come now Genius, you should have noticed by now that Pythagoras' spelling and choice of word forms based on grammatical context is poor. Generally its still clear enough that you know what he meant. I don't think poking at grammatical errors has anything to do with a flat or round earth.

Quote from: Genius on February 16, 2013, 03:57:47 PM

I can't hear "is your chance" >:.

Come now Genius, you should have noticed by now that Pythagoras' spelling and choice of word forms based on grammatical context is poor. Generally its still clear enough that you know what he meant. I don't think poking at grammatical errors has anything to do with a flat or round earth.

Sorry, it usually doesn't bother me but this did, considerably more than it should have, perhaps.

Skepti, here is a picture I took with a cheap camera.



Notice how you are able to see the trees? the rock? Notice how they are not in "dark shadow"? (Blurry because focus was on trees)

All your points are moot. Please try to reply to  content you are educated on. It clutters up the threads to correct your lack of understanding. As Saddam Hussein posted earlier, there is no apparent flaw/tampering with this picture.

I can't tell if this image is altered or not. That's the thing with advanced photo editing software. It looks like an unaltered image of a lander in a Nevada studio to me, but I can't tell how or if NASA or their ilk may have edited it. 

You make a good point, Pongo. Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't this picture taken during the first moon landing? If so, I don't think they had editing software back then.

I can't tell if this image is altered or not. That's the thing with advanced photo editing software. It looks like an unaltered image of a lander in a Nevada studio to me, but I can't tell how or if NASA or their ilk may have edited it.

Also on earth the air diffuses the light.

You make a good point, Pongo. Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't this picture taken during the first moon landing? If so, I don't think they had editing software back then.

The public certainly didn't.

Skepti, here is a picture I took with a cheap camera.



Notice how you are able to see the trees? the rock? Notice how they are not in "dark shadow"? (Blurry because focus was on trees)

All your points are moot. Please try to reply to  content you are educated on. It clutters up the threads to correct your lack of understanding. As Saddam Hussein posted earlier, there is no apparent flaw/tampering with this picture.

Ok, then. Explain the halo in the fake lander picture Thaggy put up.

well im going to jump in hear and put you all out of your misery.

It isnt a single photo. its a mosaic of photos taken from a few different photos. how did no one see this? its quite obvious once you look closely at the photo. but no one noticed this? also the sun isnt the sun at all its completely painted into the photo. a photo of the sun was never taken in the original mosaic. the dish on top of the lander is also photo shopped in yet no one noticed this either? the photo has been reshaped and some parts are from completely different missions. yet no one noticed any of this. wow

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
this video explains it all in more detail and more tactfully than i can. in fact all his videos are all quite revealing. he unlike a conspiricy nuts has actually done some quite deep research to counter stupid arguments put forward by the conspiracy nuts. i encorage you to watch all his videos to get both sides of the argument but in regards to this photo jump to 2.34.

strange seeing as you FErs are experts at finding photohsoped items in photos that no one saw any of this. very reviling realy.

well im going to jump in hear and put you all out of your misery.

It isnt a single photo. its a mosaic of photos taken from a few different photos. how did no one see this? its quite obvious once you look closely at the photo. but no one noticed this? also the sun isnt the sun at all its completely painted into the photo. a photo of the sun was never taken in the original mosaic. the dish on top of the lander is also photo shopped in yet no one noticed this either? the photo has been reshaped and some parts are from completely different missions. yet no one noticed any of this. wow

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
this video explains it all in more detail and more tactfully than i can. in fact all his videos are all quite revealing. he unlike a conspiricy nuts has actually done some quite deep research to counter stupid arguments put forward by the conspiracy nuts. i encorage you to watch all his videos to get both sides of the argument but in regards to this photo jump to 2.34.

strange seeing as you FErs are experts at finding photohsoped items in photos that no one saw any of this. very reviling realy.

So you just proved it is photoshopped.

And therefore just added more evidence to the FE side, that even when we can't find that something is shopped ourselves, it doesn't matter. If it conflicts with a flat earth, something is wrong, even if we can't immediately spot what it is.

We shall have to use this thread in future as an example that Flat Earth Theory is sound and even when we can't immediately say why something is wrong, it will always turn out to be that way because the earth is not a ball.

no this photo is edited for publication as all photos are by publishers. if you go to the actual source ALSJ and not a third party you will see it is said to be a edited composite. but all the originals are available on the AlSJ official archive website. if people used this as their source instead of 3rd party websites we wouldn't have half the problems you people bring up.

also how did no FEre see any of the actual edited parts of the photo I.E all of it but find things wrong that are actually right?
so nice try thork but no cookie for you

i realy to insist people go to the ALSJ site it relay is fascinating the amount of detail their record keeping went. its astounding it relay is. not just photos but technical data flight paths schematics and voice data transcripts.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html

they hide nothing about the editing done to photos they publish and always provide original scans of the negatives. does this seam like deception to you?

So what was the point of this thread again?

That FErs can't spot photoshop. Quite evident as I have shown. And they realy need to stop using 3rd party pictures or ones thst can clearly be found to be edited if you actualy get the picture from the source to try and prove the moon landings were a hoax .You are quite slow aren't you sadam.

well im going to jump in hear and put you all out of your misery.

It isnt a single photo. its a mosaic of photos taken from a few different photos. how did no one see this? its quite obvious once you look closely at the photo. but no one noticed this? also the sun isnt the sun at all its completely painted into the photo. a photo of the sun was never taken in the original mosaic. the dish on top of the lander is also photo shopped in yet no one noticed this either? the photo has been reshaped and some parts are from completely different missions. yet no one noticed any of this. wow

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
this video explains it all in more detail and more tactfully than i can. in fact all his videos are all quite revealing. he unlike a conspiricy nuts has actually done some quite deep research to counter stupid arguments put forward by the conspiracy nuts. i encorage you to watch all his videos to get both sides of the argument but in regards to this photo jump to 2.34.

strange seeing as you FErs are experts at finding photohsoped items in photos that no one saw any of this. very reviling realy.

What's your point here?

I'm loving how iv proved FErs can actualy tell a photoshopped picture so all of u sudden they are like " uhhhh what u on about" " what's the point of this" lol when you can't anserw act dumbfounded an scratch head lol

I'm loving how iv proved FErs can actualy tell a photoshopped picture so all of u sudden they are like " uhhhh what u on about" " what's the point of this" lol when you can't anserw act dumbfounded an scratch head lol

There's millions of photo shopped pictures out there, that are portrayed as legitimate and this particular one you put up, looks not much different than all the other clap trap put up that's supposedly legitimate.

Pythagoras, you're missing a subtle but key difference. We, nor anyone, can spot a flawlessly photoshopped image, but it's not the photoshopping that we notice that makes us believe its fake, it's the content. If you saw a flawlessly photoshopped image of a man sitting at his desk in a pool of lava, would assume its real because no one could spot a single photoshop error? Of course not, you would think its photoshopped because of the content.

this one looks different to all the others out their? why didn't you say that before i told you what was wrong with it? lol its easy to say well that picture dsnt look right after i tell you. nice try though.

im not saying NASA don't edit photos. they do. any publisher does to make they pictures look more beautiful. but the problem comes when people start using edited photos to say the m whole thing was a hoax when the originals are easialy available if you just go to the source.. if you get the original photo you can see the problem bought up by the hoax claimer dosent even exist to begin with.

il use an example provided by sceptic himself.

This.

real unedited photo


http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg

he uses this photo to try and prove a spot light was used because the sun light is not even over the surface but a simple search will show you that the original photo shows even sun light shown all over the surface. if he had just done a bit of research then he would have saved himself the embarisment.

this one looks different to all the others out their? why didn't you say that before i told you what was wrong with it? lol its easy to say well that picture dsnt look right after i tell you. nice try though.

im not saying NASA don't edit photos. they do. any publisher does to make they pictures look more beautiful. but the problem comes when people start using edited photos to say the m whole thing was a hoax when the originals are easialy available if you just go to the source.. if you get the original photo you can see the problem bought up by the hoax claimer dosent even exist to begin with.

il use an example provided by sceptic himself.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2013, 02:55:16 PM

This.

real unedited photo


http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg

he uses this photo to try and prove a spot light was used because the sun light is noe even over the surface but a simple search will show you that the original photo shows even sun light shown all over the surface. if he had just done a bit of research then he would have saved himself the embarisment.

The unedited photo does have lighting from below due to reflected sunlight so some upward cast shadows are visible.