loading...
103 A Modified Moon Image

A Modified Moon Image

Posted on November 6, 2007 by


Photoshopped Moon Pics 1

Russian bloggers has downloaded one of the pictures of the Moon landing from the official NASA website and enhanced it with the means of modern photo imaging software. They have found something that could point on the editing of the image by the primitive methods that were widely used at that time (30 years ago) in many magazines etc.

Photoshopped Moon Pics 2

Photoshopped Moon Pics 3

Anyone doing print layout work got very good at using a razor blade to quite literally slice a desired image out of its background in the source photograph. You physically remove the piece you want, and throw away the rest of the print. These areas marked with arrows point to evidences of such methods were used.

At that times it was hard to imagine that 30 years later any schoolboy can make a highly sophisticated precise digital image expertise and find out such rough editing traces.

An original NASA image is still available for anyone to download and repeat their enhancement from the NASA website at: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/GPN-2000-001131.jpg

submitted by Andrew

Advertisement



Exchange traffic with English Russia, click here

103 Responses to “A Modified Moon Image”

  1. Visitor says:

    I’m not sure I get the point. Is this an effort to “prove” the US never reached the moon?

    • lithuanian says:

      It’s impossible to prove the negative. What we can do is to point mistakes and inconsistencies in the official story.

      • Visitor says:

        Good point. I understand the principles of logic, but I don’t know how many times I’ve heard conspiracy theorists say they are going to “prove” that something did NOT happen. That’s why I put the word “prove” in quotation marks. :)

        But, I still don’t see how scratches on a photo prove
        “mistakes and inconsistencies in the official story.” The official story is that American astronauts landed on the moon. So far I’ve seen nothing to disprove any or all of that story.

        Next, someone will tell me that we really don’t have a colony on Mars, after all the money I sent to them. :)

        • lynne says:

          No colony…lol…wait,what?!:)

        • talking beaver says:

          I have noticed that NASA uses scans of ordinary photographs.

          So possibly someone working with photos was not careful enough and slightly mechanically damaged the surface. Like – was drawing or cutting something on a paper put on top of the photo or something like that.

          During scanning such damage could be registered due to slightly different reflection of light, while still remain invisible to human eye without special processing.

          This could be one reason to explain similar effect.

          • Visitor says:

            That sounds like a much more logical explanation than all the cutting and pasting.

            But then, I am not paranoid. :)

          • Sumar says:

            In that case subsequent photos developed from the same film would look normal. They don’t.

            The fact that every developed pic looks like this indicates a mistake or alteration in the original film.

  2. bladTheOpen says:

    FIRST p0wned!

  3. Akhenathon says:

    I’ve downloaded the high-resolution version (3000 x 3137 px). There are scratches all over the picture. It was scanned from film, maybe it was already scratched.

    You can go further: the astronaut is not touching the soil. Photoshop? No, he’s jumping (look at the shadow).

    • jeppe says:

      the point is the scratches are repetitive and show a pattern

      • Dave says:

        If the film or print was set on a surface and slid or had something scooted over it, it could have repeated identical scratches.

    • Dale says:

      The image has not edited. The marks are rub marks from damaged to the negative or print used for the scan. I am assuming a print. I had similar light area from finger’s oil damaging an image. I scanned a 20 year old print and found similar damage. It was not seen when printed normal.

  4. Steam McQueen says:

    Okay, this is gonna sound really dumb but there is something that always bothered me about the first moon landing.

    If Neil Armstrong was the first person on the moon, who was taking the picture of him coming down the ladder?

    Yeah, yeah… I know, a remote camera mounted outside. Or so they tell us…

    • andreas says:

      nope. the famous picture actually shows buzz aldrin. armstrong was the photographer.

      • John from Kansas says:

        Armstrong stepped on the lunar surface first. The event was recorded by a video camera on the Landing Module. Aldrin stepped out a few minutes later, photographed by Armstrong with a hand held Hasselblad. Before lift off a few hours later, Armstrong placed a memorial on the Moon’s surface in honor of cosmonauts Gagarin and Komorov, and astronauts Grissom, White and Chafee.

  5. PeterM says:

    Fake, photoshopped, staged, paintbrush…

  6. Immigrant says:

    How to explain that the flag is moving and has waves on the material. There aren’t atmosprere and wind on the Moon.
    Even jumping of the astronaut can’t provide movement to the molecules in surrounding, because (again) there is vacuum, no atmosprere, no molecules.

    • JDP says:

      Who said there isn’t an atmosphere on the moon? There most certainly is! It’s a thin atmosphere, because the moon is so small it doesn’t have enough gravity, but it is there none the less. And it also has weather systems, wind, the whole 9 yards.

      • Darek from Poland says:

        It’s not true.
        An “atmosphere” on the Moon is thousends milions (or bilions) times laxer then a true atmoshere as that one on the Earth or that one on the Mars (which is only about 100 times lower pressure then on the Earth).

        So on the Moon there isn’t atmosphere becouse there isn’t any atmosphere phenomenons as wind, thunder, convection or similiar.
        Only high quality measurment devices can detect for a period of time some molecules of helium, argon or nitrogen over Moon surface.

        The ‘waving’ of the flag is other topic. The flag could not rather be made from cotton or poliester (such materials could be destroyed by the sunshine (lack of suppressing atmosphere) in few houres or miunutes.
        If the flag is from metal foil, so the vawing is an effect of weak supperssing of initial vibrations.
        Maybe besides the waving of the flag coused by vibrations there was impressed a characteristic structure on the flag surface and it still looks like vawing.

        • John from Kansas says:

          The flag itself was made of nylon and cost $5.50.

          • Darek from Poland says:

            So the vibrations could be more supressed in nylon then in metal foil. As I’ve seen there was only waving durnig installtion of flag – natural.
            The “impressed a characteristic structure on flag surface” could be simply effect of crushing (when it was packed for transportation).

    • Kane says:

      Lmao, Check you facts!.

      The moon does actually have a atmosprere alll be it a very very small one. but never the less it does have one!.

      Second Point, have you heard of solar radiation?? i think you will find that is what is waving the flag, not wind as you know it but Solar Wind…..

      Check you facts maybe read some wiki article.

      • Dungeonbrownies says:

        solar wind is radiation, guy who talked about the rod in the flag is right. It is just the rod to open it, it is simply wrinkled from being rolled and was opened and just floats there from being set up and wrinkly, if they only used two rods to make the flag straight not so many ppl will believe nonsense, lol.

        besides, whether or not they get to the moon is unimportant.

        what is important wass that ppl have died before we even got a rocket to space.

    • Swede says:

      There are two explanations.

      (1) In the film shots you can see the astronauts rotating the flagpole as they push it into the ground. This rotation causes the flag to wave backwards and forwards. In a couple of shots, the flag continues to move after the astronaut has left the frame.

      (2) In still photos such as the one below, the flag appears to be fluttering but it is not. The flag is stationary – it is simply wrinkled. This wrinkling was caused by the way the flag was packaged for flight. You can actually see this flag in other photos with exactly the same wrinkle pattern – proving that it is not moving at all.

      In some missions there was an additional factor – the astronauts could not fully extend the horizontal crossbar (at the top of the flag). This further exaggerated the wrinkle effect.

    • Crumb says:

      No? then why did they think a ball point pen would work the first time they went to space? Lol

  7. sexington says:

    ha, i always knew it was a phony…..

  8. Bran says:

    Well, try some wikipedia:

    (Apollo Moon landing hoax)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations

    ;)

  9. your name here says:

    another argument that all the conspiracy theorists like to mention is that there should be no shadow of anything at all if your standing on the moon.

  10. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says:

    I don’t go to America because we have little disagreement now. It is a shame. After all, American airport has nice duty-free shop, where they sell many bottles of devil’s drink–Jack Daniels whiskey.

    • Wotan says:

      You should drink more whiskey instead of that heavy water.
      Whiskey makes us to be friends together, heavy water as enemies..

      • Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says:

        Okay thank you I will try this when I meet with my friend Lukashenko in Minsk. Have you seen how big his shoulders are?

        Which reminds me, I must find for him a gift. Maybe some nice ribbed condoms from the duty-free shop.

  11. novak says:

    Its funny… there is no sun, stars, or anything in the sky.

    Secondly the US administration did admit to faking the moon landings due to a camera malfunction on apollo.

    • Pacific N W says:

      Really, I clearly see stars in the background. The sun is obviously coming from the left side of the photo.

      Also, provide your source for your claim that some U.S. presidential administration faked the moon landing photos. That doesn’t sound true. I’ll bet they brought more than one camera as well.

    • Darek from Poland says:

      Must you repeat such bulls..it after ‘moon hoax creators’ ?

      The basic knowledge about photography making will give you answer on such questions. There’s no photo-carrier which can register objects which differs milions times in the intensity of light.

  12. illlich says:

    Prove to me that the Soviets actually launched Sputnik, or Laika, or Gagarin– those could be a hoaxes too. Hey– I never saw it happen, photos? video? it can all be faked.

    • Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says:

      They are all hoaxes, as you say. So is the alleged “International Space Station.” It is not in space–it is in secret closed city in western China, where Chinese, American, and Russian businessmen sell weapons technology to highest bidder.

      Oh, they also have the drunken sex orgies and pose for fake “space station” propaganda photos. I was there last week and saw this while shopping for . . . hmm, well, let’s just call them “parts.” I got good deal–I traded some oil, olives, and cashew nuts for two warheads and a Ming vase.

      I also pick up nice Rolex watch in duty-free shop Guiyang, for only 20 Euros.

    • Pacific N W says:

      I disagree. There are photos of Sputniks launch. People could see Sputnik in from their back yard. People could hear sputnik with a radio. Plus, this old guy claims to have the remnents of Sputnik in a box: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14949891 . Also, I don’t believe the theory that the lunar landing was a hoax.

      • Darek from Poland says:

        There’s only one problem in your ‘hoax’ theory:
        simulating of the moon landing or encircling (radio message emission during escapade, reflector allocated on Moon surface etc.), would be much more difficult then the real moon programm.

  13. Brian says:

    Maybe it was Russians first….

    [URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9099/russiafirstcn3.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

    …but Canadians drove these too.

  14. dude says:

    This is funny. A group of people can’t change history. It has been done so forget it. Fake or not everyone knows what nasa is and does, from what we see, hear, read, etc. So why waste time and prove to yourself or others that this is fake or real, in the future there will be much more explains for the scratches in the photo and the flag and so on, for every truth or lie that exists there is always going to be a lie and a truth to oppose it, that can be sustained by logical facts that are possible, but this doesn’t mean that those facts did or did not happen. You weren’t there so you can’t know!

  15. Dima says:

    А Гитлер, говорят, до сих пор в Аргентине прячется…

  16. Zafarad says:

    Very nice point raise by blogger.they are 100% right,because of the being the first country in the world who reach moon,Americans hired hollywood’s producers and technical staff for their moon landing film and stills.few weeks ago i saw the documentary about the this historical blunder.now i am leaving later i discuss this topic again.

  17. Wooshkaboom says:

    If the pictures were fake, don’t you think someone would have upgraded the fake images by now, so that they couldn’t be discovered as fakes by Russian bloggers? At the very least you’d think that they’d put “Russian blogger-proof” images on the NASA web site…

  18. FIRST says:

    The moon is fake. America is fake. The flag is fake. It’s all a giant lie. This universe is fake. It’s all a giant Jewish conspiracy.

    • Ruslan says:

      If there exists an all-powerful Jewish conspiracy, why did it allow the Holocaust to happen?

      • goym says:

        According to jew mytology
        6 million jews has to die before they can return
        to the holy land and reubild their kingdom

        Holocaust fits zionism as a glove

  19. Gerry says:

    Ha! Yeah all phoney. And what’s more France has never existed, it’s all a kind of stage play, theater, scam.
    Now, I myself. am the son of a former Nigerian Secretary of the Treasury. If you will only listen to my story, you’ll be richly rewarded.
    You should understand that I am also the Wizard of OZ, and not to be taken lightly. Harump!!!

    • Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says:

      I knew your father when he was minister in charge of the Nigerian finances. I told him to use Nigerian oil money to buy big weapon. He went to live in the south of France instead, where he stays drunk on the wine and watches old black-and-white movies and cartoons.

      Still, I can send my special account number if you will help. I try to raise money for special “building” project in Iranian countryside . . . under the ground. It takes much money.

      P.S.–the airport in Lagos–how is the duty-free shop there?

  20. Steam McQueen says:

    So, was Yuri Gargarin the first person in space, or just the first person to make it back alive? Check out http://www.lostcosmonauts.com and draw your own conclusion…

    • maxD says:

      Yuri was not the first ‘person’ in space, he was a cybernaut being constructed of over 18.8 billion little parts including radio-bulbs and a very crude attempt at creating a chip. He was remotely controlled. The first person in space was a Belgian farmer who got a bit carried away when launching his new-years eve fireworks and launched his whole farm including himself into orbit. It is still ther, now being used [after some alterations] as the ISS.

      Belgians are modest people so they kept it a secret.

  21. talking beaver says:

    well. possibly.

    they did not have our computers. so they often had to improve visual quality of the images with the means they had available – mechanical, chemical etc.

    you really should see some Soviet photos of the same period, specially, if they were printed in the press. :)

    much of the printed media was of really ugly quality. using retouching techniques popular at the beginning of the century.

    I used to read “Modelist-Konstruktor” magazine when I was a kid back in eighties. I often sucked big time when it came to colour images. Colour bleeding, photos retouched with brush and ink so heavily that you could not see the original photo underneath etc.

  22. leonardo says:

    Perhaps evidence that Nasa is hiding rumored structures on the moon.

    http://www.mufor.org/moon2.htm

  23. Akhenathon says:

    See the experiment of hammer and feather, on Apollo 15:

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_15/surface_opp/apo15g.avi

    Due to the virtual lack of atmosphere, the feather and the hammer drop simultaneously, hitting the floor at the same time.

    It would be impossible to simulate this experiment on Earth.

  24. Anna says:

    What’s up? My message does not go!
    Now Ican see the clip and the time was appropriate (but this does not exclude the possibility of “correcting” it ;-))
    Nevertheless, there is one more clip that argues that americans had never been on the Moon:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561

    (I am sure they had never been there, first because the level of technology in ’69 was not high enough, second because no one else in such a long time never landed there, third, because the materials about that flight were “lost”. And of course, the arguments of specialists).

  25. Anna says:

    americans had never been on the Moon:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561

    (I am sure they had never been there, first because the level of technology in ’69 was not high enough, second because no one else in such a long time never landed there, third, because the materials about that flight were “lost”. And of course, the arguments of specialists).

    • TobyEsterhase says:

      Which technologies did the US not have in 1969 that prevented them from landing on the moon? If you project how much money the original moon landing cost into “todays” money, you’ll find it’s quite expensive. NASA has a hard enough time getting continuing budgets for what they do have. Only recently has Bush “promised” money for an eventual Mars mission – although that was part of PR move to deflect some Iraq heat and make himself look better.

  26. sugar daddy says:

    did anyone see a FOX special a few years about the moon landing hoax? it looked pretty believable when they analyzed everything.

  27. illlich says:

    All these questions will be answered. There is a new “X Prize” of $20 million for the first private team to send a robotic lander to the moon, and send film back. It is possible the winner could film that part of the Apollo lander still there, as well as the US Flag and footprints, etc.

    Or you could just say the X-Prize winner faked it too.

    I do not exist, I am fake, so are you.

  28. Crumb says:

    Such deep foot prints, I would have thought there would be a lot of dust been kicked up by their feet since there is so little gravity to keep it on the ground!

    • nex says:

      Maybe you should stop thinking hypothetically and start thinking for real. There is no air turbulence when there is no air; also, are you familiar with the type of dust that covers this spot? It is silicate and in fact sticks together like wet sand. Ever tried kicking up wet sand by jumping straight up and down?

      • Crumb says:

        Silicate rock actually, ever tried leaving footprints in rock by jumping straight up and down?. the “dust” is from asteroid’s, comet’s and meteorite’s that have crashed into the moon and disintegrated. Many of these are also made of silicates, although there are over 4000 known minerals that belong to the group “silicates”, many of these are not made up of the atomic structure that causes them to stick together like wet sand and will in fact be kicked up in the atmosphere and wind has nothing to do with it.

  29. n.feold says:

    If we had landed according to the July 1969 date there would have been a proclaimed national holiday. It is al so down played. We used to play sports against John Glen high school but no Neil Armstrong school of which I am aware. How could you lose the original tapes. It just doesn’t add up.

  30. John from Florida USA says:

    We went to the moon. My dad worked for Lockheed Missles and Space. Besides, if we DIDN’T go, the Russians at the time, had tracking equipment they used for their space program,and would have tracked it.

    We had a ‘cold war’ at the time.

    Anyway, both space programs, (USA and Soviet Union) were much larger in the 60s and 70s. today, we just have a smaller program.

    John

    Ps, Great website. I love the picture of everyday Russian life.

    • If you went to the moon 30 years ago, then: Why you never go back there?? I mean, if it was possible 30 years ago, NOW should be easier… You never do it because it was propaganda… And beside ALL the inconsistencies revealed in the video, almost ALL the persons related with the project died mysteriously in the late 70’…

  31. Bljed says:

    where is shadow of man?

  32. Elkman says:

    The only thing I don’t understand is why the US-flag in waving…

  33. Lar says:

    The ”cold war” was a fake money-maker for the ‘military-industrial complex’, so the Russians (who could have tracked it) went along with the scam. No living being can survive transit through the radiation belts. The flag cannot ‘wave’ on the moon. The shadows point in different angels because of multiple light sources in the ‘stage’. The stars would have been bright enough against a black sky to be clearly be exposed on film. The ‘dust’ on the moon should have been deep enough to ‘sink’ the lander or astronaut on contact if the moon has been gathering dust out-there for ‘billions of years’. Many more inconsistencies are revealed in the video. We were fooled.

  34. Meh says:

    One question – how did the camera that was filming the lunar lander’s leave from the move capture it while in motion? I mean, who moved the camera when everyone from the moon was supposedly gone?

    • Kluge says:

      How did they get the images of the lunar module blasting off the moon if nobody was around to grab the film? The same way people watch any live tv footage… The camera’s got this nifty thing called a radio attached to it…

  35. Surfer Jerry says:

    I have wondered myself about some of the moon landing pics, they just dont make sense. Maybe there was something on the moon cut out from the image instead of hollywood magic.

  36. evil says:

    I’m god, I’m pretty sure you can’t disprove it.

  37. morbid says:

    if you check image GPN-2000-001137.jpg from the same site…there is an even more obvious pasting in that one.

  38. milky candy says:

    But something bothers me here, is the flag…as we all should be knowing, there is no wind on the moon! (no atmosphere, no air circulation)

  39. jmndos says:

    If you use google moon, you can actually get a picture of the landing site.

    If you point a laser at that landing site and loot at it through a telescope, you should get a reflection…

  40. Graphic Artist says:

    Wow… thanks a lot for the link of the original pic. I browsed the containing fodlers, and found an even bigger version ot the photo. And as you might guess – being a graphic artist myself, I could’n resist and ran some tests of my own. Not going to lie to you – am a pro at what I do so… ;)

    The marks, being mentioned as cutouts – are not. Why so?!

    The simple reason for that being, is the fact, that the faint lines and scratches are uniformly spread over THE WHOLE IMAGE. INCLUDING the sand, the astronaut, the module – the whole image.
    Now – whenever photoretouching, regardless doing it chemilally, or digitally – similar techniques are used. A systhematic approach is used. Selections/masks are used. No graphic artist is going to just randomly cut all over the piece, to produce… wahtever the result. A systematic pattern therefore should be possible to be discovered. As well as minor diferences in the consistency of the grey channels, where the cuts were used. On the countrary – what we have here, are randomly placed lines all over the immage, and no fluctuation of greys in the blackness of the sky. Which leads to only one conclusion – SCRATCHES. Like the ones, that always occur on old films. For instance when moving them, or scanning them.

    Further still – one of the main arguments of the guys, who claim that the lunar landings never took place – is the black sky. I myself am quite familiar with the fenomenon – whenever one tries to take a night photo of a house with lit windows – the sky becomes pitch black. But having still the digital capabilities at hand, I’ve qite often been able to “pull” some stars out of the blackness.

    I’ve always wanted to lay my hands on an original photo from the lunar missions, to actually myself check wether there actually can be found traces of stars in the background. A big 10x again for the link :)
    I’ve isolated and selected only the sky. Cleared as much as I could the noise from the film. Enhanced the remaining values. And here’s what I’ve come up with!

    http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/2425/gpn2000001131cut.jpg

    as you might clearly see – there are significant “spikes” in the grey levels of the sky. Significantly lager, than the uniform film noise prodices. Dunno about you – but to me those look like stars. :)

    ‘d be glad if any astronomer out there could verify if those are actual constellations.

  41. E says:

    These are scratches and lens flare. Simple.

  42. Aws says:

    will it looks like the man is not actually in the pictures cuz there is no shadow and his feet looks weird on the ground!!

  43. Dave says:

    Hey, would you like to submit comments and backlinks to millions of blogs automatically? Blog Comment Poster will do it for you. Blog Comment Poster will increase your traffic, backlinks and earnings dramatically! Sounds cool? Yes, it is cool! It’s the best automated comments posting tool on the Internet with many advanced features. Check it out!

  44. WiiKey says:

    Hi this is a chill looking blog, I was just searching for this the other day. Glad I finally discovered what I needed.

  45. Central Harlem Anonymous says:

    The various posters above who believe these to be scratches, smudges and other damage to the negatives are almost certainly right. I scan a lot of negatives (mostly 35mm and 120mm, black and white or color), and these sorts of artifacts are normal even on many new negatives. If a grain of dust lands on the emulsion, it creates scratches when the film is put in a protective sleeve.

  46. Hey I was digging for useful knowledge on supplies for grand format printers. Your site was listed on Yahoo in this category, you have an informative site.

  47. MBT outlet says:

    I was just searching for this the other day. Glad I finally discovered what I needed

  48. Line scan camera says:

    Your blog is very nice and I like it your blog keep sharing with your new article….

  49. Douglas says:

    There are approx. 10,000 photos from the ”moon” landings. From those 10K photos there is not even one close-up photo of a man’s face. Not one! All of the so-called astronauts were government actors on a movie set stage.

  50. Burton Haynes says:

    Your content is great ^_^

Leave a Reply