[Venus]

If you visit this website https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums you can view 14,223 photos taken during the Apollo missions from 1963 to 1972.

Now if you are old enough you will remember that in the 1960's and 1970's photographs were taken with a camera which had film in it. In fact digital cameras were not available until the late 1990's.
The film from a camera was developed to create a negative, and the negative was used to print a photo. The rolls of film from these missions were developed and printed when that particular mission returned to earth. And the best of them were made available to the public at that time - on television, in magazines and in books.

Also at the time the best computer graphics were along the lines of this 1975 rendering of a teapot - this one was the best ever produced at that time, and this is the original size it was created.


So there was no CGI used in any of these photographs, it was just not possible to create images with CGI such as the ones from the Apollo mission, and computer photo editing was not pioneered until the 1980's (Adobe Photoshop was not released until 1987), so they were not digitally enhanced or created or "faked" in any way.

These photos were not drawn or painted - grab a copy of "the blue marble" (below) and enlarge it and try to prove it is a painting!! You can't because it is a real photograph, taken on December 7th 1972 from a distance of 45,000 km (28,000 miles) from the earth with a 70-millimeter Hasselblad camera with an 80-millimeter Zeiss lens!!! It has been digitally scanned so it can now be viewed by anyone !!


In the 60's and 70's photos could only be changed by actually painting out any blemishes etc, and this was always so obvious that it was never done for magazine covers or advertisements the way it is today. There is no way that any of these photographs were either manually or digitally manipulated in the 60's or 70's. At that time everyone was fascinated by space and space travel, and anyone my age will remember seeing many of these photos at the time. They have not been created just for the internet !!

Fourteen thousand two hundred and twenty three photographs of proof that man landed on the moon, and the earth is a globe !!
Enjoy them :-)

[juner]

So your stance is that photo editing software was not publicly available, therefore it didn't exist. That's a cool story. A non sequitur, but still a cool story...

You haven't actually provided any evidence that shows the photos to be legitimate.

[Luke 22:35-38]

So your stance is that photo editing software was not publicly available, therefore it didn't exist. That's a cool story. A non sequitur, but still a cool story...

You haven't actually provided any evidence that shows the photos to be legitimate.

You haven't shown them to be fake.

[İntikam]

surely surely. 

[juner]

So your stance is that photo editing software was not publicly available, therefore it didn't exist. That's a cool story. A non sequitur, but still a cool story...

You haven't actually provided any evidence that shows the photos to be legitimate.

You haven't shown them to be fake.

I wasn't the one making the claim.

[TotesNotReptilian]

So your stance is that photo editing software was not publicly available, therefore it didn't exist. That's a cool story. A non sequitur, but still a cool story...

You haven't actually provided any evidence that shows the photos to be legitimate.

You haven't shown them to be fake.

I wasn't the one making the claim.

Most people would agree that the burden of proof is on you.

You are the one claiming that a huge organization is lying about everything they do.
You are the one claiming that photo editing software existed long before that technology was known to exist.

Personally, I prefer to have actual evidence before I call something fake or someone a liar.

He offered compelling reasoning why it would have been difficult/impossible to fake. Is it 100% proof? No, of course not. How exactly would you expect him to prove over the internet that something is 100% not faked?

[juner]

So your stance is that photo editing software was not publicly available, therefore it didn't exist. That's a cool story. A non sequitur, but still a cool story...

You haven't actually provided any evidence that shows the photos to be legitimate.

You haven't shown them to be fake.

I wasn't the one making the claim.

Most people would agree that the burden of proof is on you.

You are the one claiming that a huge organization is lying about everything they do.
You are the one claiming that photo editing software existed long before that technology was known to exist.

Personally, I prefer to have actual evidence before I call something fake or someone a liar.

He offered compelling reasoning why it would have been difficult/impossible to fake. Is it 100% proof? No, of course not. How exactly would you expect him to prove over the internet that something is 100% not faked?

I'm sorry, where did I make any of the claims you're suggesting here?

[Tom Bishop]

The tools in Photoshop are analogous to the analog tools found in an art studio. There were definitely art studios in the 60's and 70's.

[Luke 22:35-38]

The tools in Photoshop are analogous to the analog tools found in an art studio. There were definitely art studios in the 60's and 70's.

That doesn't automatically mean the photos were fake. It'll be like me saying that picture of your mother from that time period was faked because they had the technology to do so.

[Tom Bishop]

The tools in Photoshop are analogous to the analog tools found in an art studio. There were definitely art studios in the 60's and 70's.

That doesn't automatically mean the photos were fake. It'll be like me saying that picture of your mother from that time period was faked because they had the technology to do so.

The OP's argument was that digital manipulation was in its infancy. I'm pointing out that Photoshop is replicating the tools in an art studio, which existed during the time period.

[TotesNotReptilian]

The tools in Photoshop are analogous to the analog tools found in an art studio. There were definitely art studios in the 60's and 70's.

That doesn't automatically mean the photos were fake. It'll be like me saying that picture of your mother from that time period was faked because they had the technology to do so.

The OP's argument was that digital manipulation was in its infancy. I'm pointing out that Photoshop is replicating the tools in an art studio, which existed during the time period.

True. But the OP also asserted that this type of image couldn't be created in a a traditional art studio. However, I am not nearly as certain as he is that this isn't possible. Hand made realistic movie backdrops have been used for a long time in the film industry. I have no idea if its possible to pass one off as a real photo though.

That being said, we still have no reason to believe the image is faked in the first place.

[Venus]

The tools in Photoshop are analogous to the analog tools found in an art studio. There were definitely art studios in the 60's and 70's.

That doesn't automatically mean the photos were fake. It'll be like me saying that picture of your mother from that time period was faked because they had the technology to do so.

The OP's argument was that digital manipulation was in its infancy. I'm pointing out that Photoshop is replicating the tools in an art studio, which existed during the time period.

So Tom ... what you are virtually saying is that these photos have been manipulated! So you are admitting the photos aren't fakes.... !!!

In my original post I virtually challenged anyone to take any of the 14,233 photos on the NASA flickr page to look at each photo at maximum zoom and point out where the flaws were that would prove the photos were either totally fake, or manipulated by painting or whatever ... To date nobody has done that...

I am claiming the NASA flickr page presents 14,233 real photos... it is up to you and your FE mates to prove me (and NASA) wrong by showing that if these are not CGIs (which they cannot be) and they are not real photos... then how were they created ??

Personally I doubt whether you or any of the other flatearthers who have contributed to this topic have even open the NASA flickr page at all ...
Because you really don't want to know the spherical earth truth do you

[Venus]

So your stance is that photo editing software was not publicly available, therefore it didn't exist. That's a cool story. A non sequitur, but still a cool story...

You haven't actually provided any evidence that shows the photos to be legitimate.

In actual fact photo editing software relies on PHOTOS, so if it was used in these 14,233 photos then you must conclude that 14,233 photos of and from the Apollo missions existed.

The photos can't be faked because
(1) CGI was not capable of producing these photos
(2)They are too good to be paintings or drawings

So it is up to you guys to find a photo that you can show exactly where and why it is either CGI, painted or drawn.
Then find the same anomolies in another 1000 or so and then I might start to believe that they are not real.

[juner]

Actually, it is up to you to prove your points 1 and 2. Using subjective phrasing such as "they are too good..." is not proof, which is why I said you haven't provided evidence, because you haven't.

[Rama Set]

Actually, it is up to you to prove your points 1 and 2. Using subjective phrasing such as "they are too good..." is not proof, which is why I said you haven't provided evidence, because you haven't.

He showed an example of CGI from 1975 that was not remotely close to photo realism. That's a good indicator that photo realism was not available 6 years prior.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

So your stance is that photo editing software was not publicly available, therefore it didn't exist. That's a cool story. A non sequitur, but still a cool story...

You haven't actually provided any evidence that shows the photos to be legitimate.

You haven't shown them to be fake.

I wasn't the one making the claim.

Most people would agree that the burden of proof is on you.

You are the one claiming that a huge organization is lying about everything they do.
You are the one claiming that photo editing software existed long before that technology was known to exist.

Personally, I prefer to have actual evidence before I call something fake or someone a liar.

He offered compelling reasoning why it would have been difficult/impossible to fake. Is it 100% proof? No, of course not. How exactly would you expect him to prove over the internet that something is 100% not faked?

I'm starting to get an inkling that you're not who you say you are... Send us a video of your eyes so we can see if they transform or not.

[juner]

Actually, it is up to you to prove your points 1 and 2. Using subjective phrasing such as "they are too good..." is not proof, which is why I said you haven't provided evidence, because you haven't.

He showed an example of CGI from 1975 that was not remotely close to photo realism. That's a good indicator that photo realism was not available 6 years prior.

Irrelevant.

[Rama Set]

Actually, it is up to you to prove your points 1 and 2. Using subjective phrasing such as "they are too good..." is not proof, which is why I said you haven't provided evidence, because you haven't.

He showed an example of CGI from 1975 that was not remotely close to photo realism. That's a good indicator that photo realism was not available 6 years prior.

Irrelevant.

Incorrect.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Actually, it is up to you to prove your points 1 and 2. Using subjective phrasing such as "they are too good..." is not proof, which is why I said you haven't provided evidence, because you haven't.

He showed an example of CGI from 1975 that was not remotely close to photo realism. That's a good indicator that photo realism was not available 6 years prior.

Irrelevant.

Incorrect.

No one said it was CGI.



This is a still from "2001: A Space Odyssey," Circa 1968.

Don't discount what is possible to do for a group of highly motivated individuals. The idea that it would be just too darn hard to pull off, or inconceivable that someone would even try, is basically the first line of defense for every unthinkable thing that has ever been done.

It was thought to be highly unlikely or impossible to land on the moon in the first place, why would faking it be even harder?

[Rama Set]

I'm not saying it is impossible, I'm saying it is most likely not CGI