Lets talk about the OBVIOUS Apollo 17 Photoshopped Picture of Earth from Moon

  • 63 Replies
  • 11207 Views
*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
Here is a link to the official picture:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/images/296636main_1241_full_full.jpg

Here is the Picture:


When they first released this picture, they had no idea about the digital photo manipulating software that would be available to the public in the 2000s.

ANYONE CAN DO THIS:



Open the picture in Photoshop or Gimp (free) and adjust the Levels.

You can clearly see a box around the "Earth" because it was cut and pasted in.

Here is a picture of an eclipsed Moon and some planets:
http://astrobulletin.amnh.org/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/amnh/images/our-research/hayden-planetarium2/blog-images/moon-venus-and-jupiter-in-conjunction/1892911-1-eng-US/moon-venus-and-jupiter-in-conjunction.jpg



I chose this picture for comparison because the moon is not as bright.

This is what it looks like when not edited with a pasted in moon/earth:


Discuss.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2016, 10:03:26 PM by iWitness »
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
Here is the 2nd picture:


For some reason I can't edit my posts.
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8309
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
In the black parts there are no informations the camera could have saved.
It's simply a property of the way the camera saves an image.

I guess wheter or not this phenomen occurs depends on how dark it is, how the picutre was saved and in which format.

Do you really think, if you could so easily "prove" it's photoshop, Nasa wouldn't have either removed or corrected it? Don't be so naive...
« Last Edit: August 12, 2016, 07:37:09 AM by User324 »
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
It's obvious, game over. That is a perfect box over the circular "Earth", simply not possible in reality.
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8309
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 14374
  • Intelligence Officer
Oh. I can clear this up. What you're seeing is a jpeg compression artifact. Do this in Ms paint. Make a black background. Then put some text on it. Save it as a jpeg and you'll see the same effect.

If it's available try downloading a version of it with a lossless compression format.

Hope that helps.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

Oh. I can clear this up. What you're seeing is a jpeg compression artifact. Do this in Ms paint. Make a black background. Then put some text on it. Save it as a jpeg and you'll see the same effect.

If it's available try downloading a version of it with a lossless compression format.

Hope that helps.

^^^ Agreed. You shouldn't be looking to a .jpg format image for any type of clarity. It is a heavily compressed format.

When the file is created and saved, a compression level is selected, I have seen a scale from 1-10 used. Different jpegs will have different levels of compression and more or less artifacting.

And before you guys and try it, converting the jpegs to another format will not remove the artifacts.

You can clearly see a box around the "Earth" because it was cut and pasted in.

As others have alluded to, those are JPEG artifacts. The relevant terms to understand are "discrete cosine transform" and "macroblocks"

*

neutrino

  • 635
  • FET is a religion. You can't fight faith.
Need a RAW to actually check it. Do you have it?
FET is religion. No evidence will convince a FE-er. It would be easier to convince Muslims they are wrong.

Try to find the original and get it as a .png.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
yAwn, COME ON. There is NO WAY a jpg would add a PERFECT BOX around a circle.
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

?

Woody

  • 1144
yAwn, COME ON. There is NO WAY a jpg would add a PERFECT BOX around a circle.

Looks like someone is just accepting what they are told, because it makes them fill comfortable.

Since it looks like you do not want to educate yourself by doing a simple search the net for information I will do it for you.

When performing block-based coding for quantization, as in JPEG-compressed images, several types of artifacts can appear.

Ringing
Contouring
Posterizing
Staircase noise (aliasing) along curving edges
Blockiness in "busy" regions (block boundary artifacts, sometimes called macroblocking, quilting, or checkerboarding)

Simple explanation is when the picture is compressed an algorithms is used.

So simple to find the information about the compression artifacts.

That is why if you want to analyze photos you do not use one that has been compressed.

Find a picture that has not been compressed.

*

getrealzommb

  • 894
  • We do actually live on a ball: But who cares?
yAwn, COME ON. There is NO WAY a jpg would add a PERFECT BOX around a circle.


So I guess you believe, with the artifacting around the flag that this is also pasted in?

yAwn, COME ON. There is NO WAY a jpg would add a PERFECT BOX around a circle.

I don't see a perfect box. I see a messy slop of pixels with a big chunk missing in the top left....
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 14374
  • Intelligence Officer
yAwn, COME ON. There is NO WAY a jpg would add a PERFECT BOX around a circle.

It seriously took that long for you to come up with that expert rebuttal?

You don't need to believe me.  I told you in the first post how to demonstrate it.  With the tools right in front of you.  Right now.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

yAwn, COME ON. There is NO WAY a jpg would add a PERFECT BOX around a circle.

Looks like someone is just accepting what they are told, because it makes them fill comfortable.

Since it looks like you do not want to educate yourself by doing a simple search the net for information I will do it for you.

When performing block-based coding for quantization, as in JPEG-compressed images, several types of artifacts can appear.

Ringing
Contouring
Posterizing
Staircase noise (aliasing) along curving edges
Blockiness in "busy" regions (block boundary artifacts, sometimes called macroblocking, quilting, or checkerboarding)

Simple explanation is when the picture is compressed an algorithms is used.

So simple to find the information about the compression artifacts.

That is why if you want to analyze photos you do not use one that has been compressed.

Find a picture that has not been compressed.

Busted.  NEXT!

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 14374
  • Intelligence Officer
yAwn, COME ON. There is NO WAY a jpg would add a PERFECT BOX around a circle.

Disclaimer:  I'm very drunk right now. 

You know what.  Just to show you how bad I feel about calling you a fucking retard, I'm going to do you a solid here.

<puts on conspiracy theory voice>

HERE ARE THE FACTORS

Nasa has a repository of hundreds of thousands of photographs taken from it's various missions.  But when moon hoaxers started examining them when Paint Shop became available.  And they noticed some odd marks in the photos that would seem to suggest photo manipulation.

NOW HERE'S WHERE IT GETS CRAZY

To save bandwidth Nasa converted their raw images to a jpeg format common on the internet.  What they didn't know that the consequence of this would be sweaty conspiracy theory nerds making blog posts 'exposing the conspiracy' while those of us who have operated ms paint have to keep telling them "no fool, that's a compression artifact".  So now you might ask why don't I just get the original image.

NOW HERE'S WHERE IT'LL BLOW YOUR MIND

Nasa doesn't have them publicly available for download.  I think you need to sign up as a researcher or something.  Well that's what I came up with with 5 minutes of googling.

<ends conspiracy theory voice>

So there you go.  Whenever someone says, oh that's jpeg.  You can say exactly, that's what the government wants you to have.  Nasa won't give you the original image.(bwwooooong(x files noise)) because of ... I don't know moon lizard conspiracy I guess.

Fair warning: it only takes about 5 minutes of googling/registering yourself as a student or finding some nasa torrent to get to the originals.  But you're never going to do that.  Hell you were too lazy to type "nasa fake moon box" into Google so it can tell you immediately the mistake you made.  And anybody who's stupid enough to fall for it won't try either.

There now you can keep using your favorite talking point to irritate rounders.

Have fun.  Try thinking about these flat earth points for more than 1 second.  Well you'll still believe them because, you're a... well I don't want to have to give another apology.  But yeah, you're you.  But at least you might have more of a counter argument than moaning the word "duhhhhhhh" for 12 hours before typing "yawn" and hi fiving the cat and then reading the sexier parts of the Bible.  HeHe, you know what I mean :)

You're welcome :)
« Last Edit: August 13, 2016, 12:52:22 AM by crutonius »
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

MrDebunk

  • 358
  • Chaotic good
Here is a link to the official picture:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/images/296636main_1241_full_full.jpg

Here is the Picture:


When they first released this picture, they had no idea about the digital photo manipulating software that would be available to the public in the 2000s.

ANYONE CAN DO THIS:



Open the picture in Photoshop or Gimp (free) and adjust the Levels.

You can clearly see a box around the "Earth" because it was cut and pasted in.

Here is a picture of an eclipsed Moon and some planets:
http://astrobulletin.amnh.org/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/amnh/images/our-research/hayden-planetarium2/blog-images/moon-venus-and-jupiter-in-conjunction/1892911-1-eng-US/moon-venus-and-jupiter-in-conjunction.jpg



I chose this picture for comparison because the moon is not as bright.

This is what it looks like when not edited with a pasted in moon/earth:


Discuss.

There we go, fixed it.

Now I will respond.

Those artifacts you see are from the jpg image compression. I have another image of a bunch of televisions from Wikimedia Commons that is also a jpg:



I use paint.net, so I downloaded gimp to try and 'replicate' these results like you did.

Results with the TV Wall:



I did lower the quality of the jpg (meaning it's more compressed) before hand, but that was only to 'replicate' what iWitness was seeing.

Then I went with a much higher quality version of what iWitness used as the first image, which can be found here. Results:



Nothing from what iWitness saw previously. That's proof it's jpg artifacts, not NASA themselves. The image he used was surely meant for viewing on a webpage, and was more compressed to allow for faster loading to accomodate for people with slower internet.
M R D E B U N K (the reboot)

Quote from: totallackofintelligence
You sound like shill.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Busted.  NEXT!
yAwn, COME ON. There is NO WAY a jpg would add a PERFECT BOX around a circle.

As always....the epitome of intelligence I always see from flat earthers. I am seriously suspecting that this movement and people like this, could be paid shills themselves. They accuse all who show even the mildest form of critical thinking skills or question them with even the most easily proven evidence a shill. Just like the cheater always accusing he other person, when they themselves are the culprit. Maybe Legba is on to something, but actually attacking the wrong people.

Just a paid disinformation team to say the absolute dumbest absurd things humanely possible, making the witch hunts centuries ago look small in comparison. So then, when someone is actually on to something that disagrees with a mainstream view, the media can just say "oh they are just one of those conspiracy theorist, crazy and mentally deficient"..then can point to people like scepti, iwitness, jroa, Hoppy, heiwa, Legba... the list goes on.

With this ammo it then gives the media easy means to have any truly educated people with solid evidence questioning a mainstream view the easy smoking gun to dismiss them into this group or idiots.

 Even with a doctorate and masters, success, proven intelligence, thriving business, combination of experiences most people have not experienced and so forth..basically everything in america that would deam you "someone to listen to" or a success. And actually people in america listen to others whom have much fewer reasons to be heard. But even with all these things, as soon as I step outside the mainstream safety net in views, no matter what evidence, most of the time people just shut down. Sure a few might listen, but most will just label you as a "conspiracy theorist nut job", all of the reasons that you should be heard disappear. Though they would have been wide eared if you stayed in the mainstream.

There are others whom have many more reasons and qualifications to be heard than I do...yet they will get the same treatment.

A big part of this I blame on idiots like I described above. So thank y'all.....


Drunken rage...

Ha ha ha!!! Please do not apologize, I say keep going lol. As a matter of fact I will take a shot right now!! You can only be nice so long here until you want to just slap someone.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
A logical, easy explanation spelled out with actual pictures and evidence.
You actually took a minute to think something out, look at it rationally, then perform an un biased experiment. You have just done more work than any flat earther has ever done on the entire internet. You are a hard working fellow.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2016, 01:13:29 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

MrDebunk

  • 358
  • Chaotic good
A logical, easy explanation spelled out with actual pictures and evidence.
You actually took a minute to think something out, look at it rationally, then perform an un biased experiment. You have just done more work than any flat earther has ever done on the entire internet. You are a hard working fellow.

Thanks, I'm just a guy who's into space and the things that go there, as well as a guy who explains such things to people that can't really grasp it and probably won't. I'm not really dedicated to this.
M R D E B U N K (the reboot)

Quote from: totallackofintelligence
You sound like shill.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!

Thanks, I'm just a guy who's into space and the things that go there, as well as a guy who explains such things to people that can't really grasp it and probably won't.

You are a shill....that is what you really are. Just ask scepti..he will tell you ::)

I'm not really dedicated to this.
This is actually sad, as you admit this, yet you have done more work than I have ever seen a flat earther or someone with that mindset do lol.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

getrealzommb

  • 894
  • We do actually live on a ball: But who cares?
Busted.  NEXT!
yAwn, COME ON. There is NO WAY a jpg would add a PERFECT BOX around a circle.

As always....the epitome of intelligence I always see from flat earthers. I am seriously suspecting that this movement and people like this, could be paid shills themselves. They accuse all who show even the mildest form of critical thinking skills or question them with even the most easily proven evidence a shill. Just like the cheater always accusing he other person, when they themselves are the culprit. Maybe Legba is on to something, but actually attacking the wrong people.

Just a paid disinformation team to say the absolute dumbest absurd things humanely possible, making the witch hunts centuries ago look small in comparison. So then, when someone is actually on to something that disagrees with a mainstream view, the media can just say "oh they are just one of those conspiracy theorist, crazy and mentally deficient"..then can point to people like scepti, iwitness, jroa, Hoppy, heiwa, Legba... the list goes on.

With this ammo it then gives the media easy means to have any truly educated people with solid evidence questioning a mainstream view the easy smoking gun to dismiss them into this group or idiots.

 Even with a doctorate and masters, success, proven intelligence, thriving business, combination of experiences most people have not experienced and so forth..basically everything in america that would deam you "someone to listen to" or a success. And actually people in america listen to others whom have much fewer reasons to be heard. But even with all these things, as soon as I step outside the mainstream safety net in views, no matter what evidence, most of the time people just shut down. Sure a few might listen, but most will just label you as a "conspiracy theorist nut job", all of the reasons that you should be heard disappear. Though they would have been wide eared if you stayed in the mainstream.

There are others whom have many more reasons and qualifications to be heard than I do...yet they will get the same treatment.

A big part of this I blame on idiots like I described above. So thank y'all.....


Drunken rage...

Ha ha ha!!! Please do not apologize, I say keep going lol. As a matter of fact I will take a shot right now!! You can only be nice so long here until you want to just slap someone.

I agree, This is a conversation I had aaaaaages ago. I bolded the relevant bit, but left the rest for context.


I take offense to that. I'm what you call a conspiracy theorist and I'm open minded. Of course I don't want to derail the thread. BTW, I take offense but I'm not mad or anything.
Quote
You are quite clearly not the most open minded. Your mind has been mainly closed by your faith. Just because you do not believe in a flat earth, dose not make you open minded. you may be more open minded than some, who knows for sure.

I'm open minded. You prove that a conspiracy theory is false and I'll accept it. I usually assume the incident happened the way they say it happened until I dig deeper. When you dig you always find inconstancy.
Quote

What are your sources when you "dig" deeper?

Measure your conspiracy theories against this, and be honest. how many stand up to testing?

1. Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy, or when the evidence fits equally
well to other causal connections (or randomness) the conspiracy theory is likely false.

2. The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power ot technology beyond what is commonly available to pull it off. Most of the time in most circumstances, people are not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

3. The conspiracy is complex and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

4. The conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets.

5. The conspiracy encompasses some grandiose ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, it’s probably false. ( what world government is going to just roll over to another?).

6.The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger events that have much lower
probabilities of being true.

7. The conspiracy theory assigns portentous and sinister meanings to what are most likely random and insignificant
events.

8.The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning
degrees of probability or of fact.

9.The theorist is extremely and indiscriminately suspicious of any and all government agencies or private organizations.

10.The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all  evidence for his theory and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence.

I would start off with 9/11. What I suggest is you watch "9/11 in plane sight". And no, that isn't a misprint, you spell it the way you see it. Also I would also check out engineers for 9/11 truth.

Woah.... I have never claimed that nobody conspires against us.
There is probably small amounts of truth in many conspiracy theories, trouble is people go mad and end up way off the mark. These people often end up looking paranoid and look insane. These people also usually end up off down the rabbit hole, seeking bigger and bigger conspiracy theories. They often then find themselves locked in a box of closed mindedness and do not even know it.


I have seen that Video.
I will not just accept another individuals view on things, unconditionally. I watched it full of skepticism and gave the subject much thought.

I can categorically tell you that in my opinion. The situation was real, a terror attack. however the towers and building 7 was more likely leveled on purpose to cover the fact they new it was coming and failed to stop it or did not want to stop it, to justify a war? maybe... also for insurance reasons no doubt. The pentagon incident has a fishy smell. something dose not add up. I will refrain from spouting my reasons online.

Never trust YouTube, not even 50% unless you can verify the credibility of the content. You have to learn to whittle fact from fiction, sort the wheat from the chaff. Your opinion on my brother in law's group also proves the same. You would rather take somebody who is trying to sell a story's word over logical, intellectual reasoning and my brother in laws testimony.

Use the guide I posted and see what stacks up.

?

Woody

  • 1144
I will be surprised if iWitness will acknowledge he maybe wrong.  The vast majority of times I see someone on here acknowledging they were wrong about something it is an RE.

I can not recall any FE admitting publicly they could be wrong.  I suspect however some FE admitted being wrong somewhere on this forum.

1. It is not Apollo 17, but Apollo 11.
2. It is not Photoshopped, because Photoshop came out in 1990 and the picture you posted in 1969.
3. It was not edited with a computer because first computer painting software was developed in 1984 by Apple and was called MacPaint.
4. It is not CGI because computers of that era were as powerful as today's pocket calculators, therefore they were far from being able to edit pictures.
5. Your method doesnt prove anything since the photo is compressed in JPEG format, try to get an original bitmap picture from Nasa.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Damn....^^^ just damn......and the count down until he is called a shill begins
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42252
When they first released this picture, they had no idea about the digital photo manipulating software that would be available to the public in the 2000s.
What makes you think that NASA would have used digital photo manipulation when the photo could have been just as easily manipulated in a darkroom? 

Perhaps you should learn about film photography and processing before you make such idiotic accusations.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
Quote
Photo manipulation dates back to some of the earliest photographs captured on glass and tin plates during the 19th Century. The practice began not long after the creation of the first photograph (1825)

Quote
An early example of tampering was in the early 1860s, when a photo of Abraham Lincoln was altered using the body from a portrait of John C. Calhoun and the head of Lincoln from a famous seated portrait by Mathew Brady – the same portrait which was the basis for the original Lincoln Five-dollar bill.

Quote
Some photo manipulations are considered skillful artwork while others are frowned upon as unethical practices, especially when used to deceive the public, such as that used for political propaganda, or to make a product or person look better.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_manipulation
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

Then say the photos were manipulated. This thread claims the photos were photoshopped, a seriously misguided claim.


*

MrDebunk

  • 358
  • Chaotic good
Quote
Photo manipulation dates back to some of the earliest photographs captured on glass and tin plates during the 19th Century. The practice began not long after the creation of the first photograph (1825)

Quote
An early example of tampering was in the early 1860s, when a photo of Abraham Lincoln was altered using the body from a portrait of John C. Calhoun and the head of Lincoln from a famous seated portrait by Mathew Brady – the same portrait which was the basis for the original Lincoln Five-dollar bill.

Quote
Some photo manipulations are considered skillful artwork while others are frowned upon as unethical practices, especially when used to deceive the public, such as that used for political propaganda, or to make a product or person look better.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_manipulation

Did you see the experiment I did over here?
M R D E B U N K (the reboot)

Quote from: totallackofintelligence
You sound like shill.