[Tom Bishop]

That's a fairly unreasonable request. I asked him to produce the primary source for the computer enhanced photos. This should be vetted first. It is unreasonable to expect Tom to have an expertise in forensic photo analysis.

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

[Rama Set]

NASA was not started by rocket scientists, it employed rocket scientists; NASA was started by President Eisenhower. The preceding agency predates the Nazi movement. This claim Is specious and misleading.

One of Hitler's top ranking SS officers was made director of NASA, and oversaw the entire Saturn and Apollo programs.

Are you talking about Wernher Von Braun?  If you are, he claimed to be an honorary member of the SS and there is no substantial link between him and nazi war crimes other than that he witnessed them, was appalled by them, and was afraid to speak out about it.  He was also arrested by the SS near the end of WWII.  This is definitely murky ground, as many of the actions by both sides occupy, but he is not definitively a war criminal since he was not responsible for the slave labor used in the V-2 program.

He was never the chief administrator of NASA.

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

Other Nazis also held high ranking positions in NASA.

They were made managers of NASA, not merely 'rocket scientists'.

Many nazis were not war criminals as well.  You need to establish which were war criminals.

Many of the rocket scientists working for NASA were nazis yes, but in what sense were they war criminals?  Were they convicted as such?  For what war crimes?  Please cite evidence. Not every Nazi is a war criminal, and developing rockets is not a war crime.

Slave labor and mistreatment of prisoners are absolutely war crimes.

Not all nazis used, supported or ordered slave labor and/or mistreated prisoners.  You are painting every German in the employ of the Third Reich with the same brush.  This would be a big mistake.

Even if they were war criminals, why would that mean photos of the Earth are faked?  This is the genetic fallacy in action.

I don't see how it is a fallacy that an organization is discredited because it is operated by criminals.

You are assuming that their past actions necessarily influenced their future endeavors, that because they were employed by the Nazi regime, that this makes their scientific and engineering work a fraud; this is what the genetic fallacy is.  I might accept that if the scientists in question you were guilty of fraud as it relates to their scientific work, but I can find nothing to indicate that they were dishonest scientists, merely that they were on the losing side of WWII.  Last I checked this does not make them war criminals or untrustworthy.

[garygreen]

Oh hey look, blocking artifacts that can be reproduced in pretty much every digital image ever.  He doesn't specify what image he used.  He doesn't specify what he did to the image.  What a joke.  But it's in a Youtube video, so Tom believes it.

http://www.iti.gr/files/csvt_10-2002.pdf

THE BLOCK-based discrete cosine transform (B-DCT) scheme is a fundamental component of many image and video compression standards including JPEG, H.263, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, and others, used in a wide range of applications. The B-DCT scheme takes
advantage of the local spatial correlation property of the images by dividing the image into 8 x 8 blocks of pixels, transforming each block from the spatial domain to the frequency domain using the discrete cosine transform (DCT) and quantizing the DCT coefficients. Since blocks of pixels are treated as single entities and coded separately, correlation among spatially adjacent blocks is not taken into account in coding, which results in block boundaries being visible when the decoded image is reconstructed.

I don't get any of the technical stuff, but I gather that JPEG images are composed of lots of blocks, and the edges of those blocks can be rendered visible.

You'd be amazed what you can learn with a modicum of skepticism and an genuine desire to learn new things.

e: Here is a demonstration of these artifacts that anyone can reproduce:

Step 1: Open MS Paint and open a new file.  It doesn't really matter about the dimensions.  To make this something like the Apollo images, fill the background with black and then use the circle tool to make a white circle in the middle of the image, like this:


Step 2: Save this file as a JPEG.

Step 3: Use the fill tool to fill in the black space with different colors and look at what happens.  You'll see something like this:

[Tintagel]

You'd be amazed what you can learn with a modicum of skepticism and an genuine desire to learn new things.

Indeed.  Such as the earth's flatness.

[Hoppy]

The Germans already had the NASA prototype in 1929. Go figure.

[markjo]

Let's start from scratch.
Please take the original picture AS11_44_6642 (LEM, moon and earth) and give us the step by step procedure used to reveal the fraud.
Photoshop should be a good tool for that.

Actually, you'll want to start with an uncompressed scan of the original negative.  The JPEG compression process can introduce artifacts that can be misinterpreted as retouching.

[bj1234]

The Germans already had the NASA prototype in 1929. Go figure.

What is that some sort of music video? 

[Antonio]

That's a fairly unreasonable request. I asked him to produce the primary source for the computer enhanced photos. This should be vetted first. It is unreasonable to expect Tom to have an expertise in forensic photo analysis.

Tom Bishop claimed

photographs from that source have been demonstrated to be fraudulent

I'm asking for the demonstration process. The forensic photo analysis expertise of Tom Bishop doesn't matter here, the original claimer should have some, and should show how he applies it to the image processing. Unfortunately, auris.com does not meet these criteria.

Actually, you'll want to start with an uncompressed scan of the original negative.  The JPEG compression process can introduce artifacts that can be misinterpreted as retouching.

Indeed, that's part of the demonstration process. As far as I know, there is no information about the source pictures used.

[Tom Bishop]

Are you talking about Wernher Von Braun?  If you are, he claimed to be an honorary member of the SS and there is no substantial link between him and nazi war crimes other than that he witnessed them, was appalled by them, and was afraid to speak out about it.

Von Braun doesn't seem too appalled here by the atrocities of the concentration camps to me.

Many of the rocket scientists working for NASA were nazis yes, but in what sense were they war criminals?  Were they convicted as such?  For what war crimes?  Please cite evidence. Not every Nazi is a war criminal, and developing rockets is not a war crime.

No one forced them to join the Nazi party, join the SS, or work for Hitler as ranking members in his concentration camps. There were plenty of Germans who chose not to join the Nazi party.

You are assuming that their past actions necessarily influenced their future endeavors, that because they were employed by the Nazi regime, that this makes their scientific and engineering work a fraud; this is what the genetic fallacy is.  I might accept that if the scientists in question you were guilty of fraud as it relates to their scientific work, but I can find nothing to indicate that they were dishonest scientists, merely that they were on the losing side of WWII.  Last I checked this does not make them war criminals or untrustworthy.

Von Braun and his team of scientists are guilty of fraud in their past careers. Here they are tricking Hitler with a fake video.

[Tom Bishop]

That's a fairly unreasonable request. I asked him to produce the primary source for the computer enhanced photos. This should be vetted first. It is unreasonable to expect Tom to have an expertise in forensic photo analysis.

Tom Bishop claimed

photographs from that source have been demonstrated to be fraudulent

I'm asking for the demonstration process. The forensic photo analysis expertise of Tom Bishop doesn't matter here, the original claimer should have some, and should show how he applies it to the image processing. Unfortunately, auris.com does not meet these criteria.

Actually, you'll want to start with an uncompressed scan of the original negative.  The JPEG compression process can introduce artifacts that can be misinterpreted as retouching.

Indeed, that's part of the demonstration process. As far as I know, there is no information about the source pictures used.

Here's a demonstration of one the the scenes in the video I made several ago on the old forum:

http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/d5784ce2-2348-40a0-8f9b-0ddf37763b6e

[Tom Bishop]

Oh hey look, blocking artifacts that can be reproduced in pretty much every digital image ever.  He doesn't specify what image he used.  He doesn't specify what he did to the image.  What a joke.  But it's in a Youtube video, so Tom believes it.

http://www.iti.gr/files/csvt_10-2002.pdf

THE BLOCK-based discrete cosine transform (B-DCT) scheme is a fundamental component of many image and video compression standards including JPEG, H.263, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, and others, used in a wide range of applications. The B-DCT scheme takes
advantage of the local spatial correlation property of the images by dividing the image into 8 x 8 blocks of pixels, transforming each block from the spatial domain to the frequency domain using the discrete cosine transform (DCT) and quantizing the DCT coefficients. Since blocks of pixels are treated as single entities and coded separately, correlation among spatially adjacent blocks is not taken into account in coding, which results in block boundaries being visible when the decoded image is reconstructed.

I don't get any of the technical stuff, but I gather that JPEG images are composed of lots of blocks, and the edges of those blocks can be rendered visible.

You'd be amazed what you can learn with a modicum of skepticism and an genuine desire to learn new things.

e: Here is a demonstration of these artifacts that anyone can reproduce:

Step 1: Open MS Paint and open a new file.  It doesn't really matter about the dimensions.  To make this something like the Apollo images, fill the background with black and then use the circle tool to make a white circle in the middle of the image, like this:


Step 2: Save this file as a JPEG.

Step 3: Use the fill tool to fill in the black space with different colors and look at what happens.  You'll see something like this:

JPEG compression ringing isn't in question here. What is questionable are the rectangular "auroras" around the earths, which are typically a sign of image editing.









To reproduce, do the following in photoshop:

add sharpness
add light to shadows
the earths imaged during A11 appear tampered with.

[Hoppy]

The Germans already had the NASA prototype in 1929. Go figure.

What is that some sort of music video?

I don't know what the music is. The video is 1929 science fiction movie from the silent movie era.  This movie almost looks like a NASA launch.

[markjo]

JPEG compression ringing isn't in question here. What is questionable are the rectangular "auroras" around the earths, which are typically a sign of image editing.

Correct, no one mentioned anything about "ringing".  However, pixel block artifacts are a different story and are quite evident in your examples.  Again, you must start with an uncompressed original to prove any type of valid point about editing since the JPEG compression process itself is a lossey and is well known to lose image information, especially at high compression ratios.

[markjo]

The Germans already had the NASA prototype in 1929. Go figure.

What is that some sort of music video?

I don't know what the music is. The video is 1929 science fiction movie from the silent movie era.  This movie almost looks like a NASA launch.

Amazing how life imitates art sometimes, isn't it?

[BillyBob]

Tom Bishop is a lunatic. 

[Rama Set]

Are you talking about Wernher Von Braun?  If you are, he claimed to be an honorary member of the SS and there is no substantial link between him and nazi war crimes other than that he witnessed them, was appalled by them, and was afraid to speak out about it.

Von Braun doesn't seem too appalled here by the atrocities of the concentration camps to me.

You are cherry picking a quote, you have to do better. You also have not shown that he is responsible for any war crimes.

Many of the rocket scientists working for NASA were nazis yes, but in what sense were they war criminals?  Were they convicted as such?  For what war crimes?  Please cite evidence. Not every Nazi is a war criminal, and developing rockets is not a war crime.

No one forced them to join the Nazi party, join the SS, or work for Hitler as ranking members in his concentration camps. There were plenty of Germans who chose not to join the Nazi party.

Being a member of the Nazi Party does not make you a war criminal. Who was part of the SS?  Who were ranking members in concentration camps?  What were there ranks?  What was their role at NASA and for how long?

You are assuming that their past actions necessarily influenced their future endeavors, that because they were employed by the Nazi regime, that this makes their scientific and engineering work a fraud; this is what the genetic fallacy is.  I might accept that if the scientists in question you were guilty of fraud as it relates to their scientific work, but I can find nothing to indicate that they were dishonest scientists, merely that they were on the losing side of WWII.  Last I checked this does not make them war criminals or untrustworthy.

Von Braun and his team of scientists are guilty of fraud in their past careers. Here they are tricking Hitler with a fake video.

I don't have the time right now to watch the entire video. Can you please point me to an appropriate place to start?

[bj1234]

The Germans already had the NASA prototype in 1929. Go figure.

What is that some sort of music video?

I don't know what the music is. The video is 1929 science fiction movie from the silent movie era.  This movie almost looks like a NASA launch.

Oh so completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[bj1234]

Are you talking about Wernher Von Braun?  If you are, he claimed to be an honorary member of the SS and there is no substantial link between him and nazi war crimes other than that he witnessed them, was appalled by them, and was afraid to speak out about it.

Von Braun doesn't seem too appalled here by the atrocities of the concentration camps to me.

Using your own logic, you cannot take the word of the person giving the account.  This is because he admitted to sabotaging.  Therefore the person giving the account is lying in order to portray the Nazis in bad light and sabotage their movement.

It was probably a stupid form of sabotage (because we in fact carried out much more elaborate forms of sabotage) by one of the deportees on night shift.

The man giving the account was an admitted saboteur.  Therefore anything he says cannot be trusted.

[garygreen]

JPEG compression ringing isn't in question here. What is questionable are the rectangular "auroras" around the earths, which are typically a sign of image editing.

Just once I'd love to see you actually provide a warrant for any of the claims you make.  Once.

Can you provide ANY SOURCE AT ALL that can confirm this statement?  Because it looks to me like you took a reduced version of a jpg of a scan of a photo taken in 1969 and found a bunch of artifacts.

Oh hey look at all the people posting fake photos of the Moon on Google images.  I can't believe that so many people would forge their own photos of the Moon in the sky.  It's unbelievable.  Don't worry about getting bogged down in what I did to these photos or if it's a legitimate way to spot a fake photo.  Just take my word for it.

[Tintagel]

JPEG compression ringing isn't in question here. What is questionable are the rectangular "auroras" around the earths, which are typically a sign of image editing.

Just once I'd love to see you actually provide a warrant for any of the claims you make.  Once.

Can you provide ANY SOURCE AT ALL that can confirm this statement?  Because it looks to me like you took a reduced version of a jpg of a scan of a photo taken in 1969 and found a bunch of artifacts.

Oh hey look at all the people posting fake photos of the Moon on Google images.  I can't believe that so many people would forge their own photos of the Moon in the sky.  It's unbelievable.  Don't worry about getting bogged down in what I did to these photos or if it's a legitimate way to spot a fake photo.  Just take my word for it.

Your photos show artifacting near the moon's edges, which are to be expected in jpeg compression.  Tom Bishop's example clearly shows a complete rectangle containing the entire image of the earth, where the artifacting is notably different from that in the surrounding areas.  The artifacts are not located only near the edges of the earth-disc, they're expanded to a rectangle around it, as if someone 'clipped' that image and pasted it onto the other one.  This does occur in image editing.