Anomaly or noise?

[trainedobserver]

The claims are the Zeeman crater photo came from here I think.
Better photos here. Continue to zoom in using the zoom tool to get to 20 meter resolution. Careful of the shadows.

 

[trainedobserver]

Some more information. Click Here

I have to say those are horrible photographs. The resolution renders them nonsensical. I think the researchers have "tampered" with them a bit too much.

Using the LROC ACT-REACT browser I was able to get this shot of the Zeeman Y rim. Notice the scale. The resolution and detail is such you could spend countless hours exploring this region in the browser. Due to how these photographs are stored and rendered I have very serious doubts that official "tampering" could be masked even if someone considered it cost effective to do so.



Note: The above photo is of the a small section of the crater rim of Zeeman Y obscured by the blur in the photo Para posted of the Zeeman crater.

 

[pixelsmith]

i believe it was simply poor photographic conditions, poor camera handling and the need for fantastic photos to sell the public on future space programs. they came back with crap for photos and someone behind a desk came up with the idea of using the practice moon set to fake some shots, they got pretty good results so they ran with it and did more.

 

[nameless]

speakin of fakin stuff check this film out;

 

[boomerang]

Sometimes I long for the good old days of film emulsion, when hoaxed pics were harder to make, and certain things could be ruled in or out by analyzing photo negatives.

 

[nameless]

Sometimes I long for the good old days of film emulsion, when hoaxed pics were harder to make, and certain things could be ruled in or out by analyzing photo negatives.

dont serious investigators do this well, use film and digital? how about 1/4 inch tape reel to reel for evp too. u can still fake stuff, but its alot harder, ingenious and more hassle i guess. if you look at the ussr film its pretty sophisticated for the time.

 

[trainedobserver]

dont serious investigators do this well, use film and digital? how about 1/4 inch tape reel to reel for evp too. u can still fake stuff, but its alot harder, ingenious and more hassle i guess. if you look at the ussr film its pretty sophisticated for the time.

I think those were official films made to show what they expected to encounter on the surface. You'll notice they sink to their knees in the dust and use "moon dust shoes", a modified snow ski, to safely move on the surface. Of course we didn't find such conditions at the Apollo landing sites.

 

[boomerang]

I know squat about digital imaging at the pixel level. But I do know it gets super complex. A combination of higher math and computer programming.

 

[Donnie Vienus]

I have heard this before and have to say it doesn't hold any water at all. These are photographs of the most significant achievements in human history we are talking about. No one at NASA would have assumed that these pieces of history could have escaped the scrutiny of countless generations. The "they didn't think anyone would notice" argument makes no sense to me. Neither does the argument that someone was "passing clues" in the photographs. The only argument that makes any sense other than misidentification is incompetence (which is what you are saying I guess). Here we have an organization capable of astounding technical achievements and they can't produce flawless photographs when they would have been absolute control of every aspect? It seems pretty ... mind boggling.

If there is truth to the "air brush" stories and theories, could anomalous features in moon photographs indeed be indications of touch-ups intended to mask aspects of the mission or equipment used that they didn't want the Russians to see rather than ruins, aliens, or UFOs?

Administrative mistakes can happen anywhere.I think your incompetence
theory could be on the money.Actual photos being mixed up with 'dress rehearsal'
photographs,it quite possibly was done by one person.