11–20 of 134 posts
Well that's a very interesting article to bring out facts. There are at least a billion people out there who still think this guy: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg is Neil Armstrong. Also there is another half-a-billion or so which thinks man never landed on moon. Darn the fluff, get the truth. Upvoted.
BTW in AS11-40-5903 they took it too far and cut Buzz Aldrin's antenna.
See here a British youth journalist challenge Buzz Aldrin about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kKFYTBo6kA
Pardon my ignorance, but why is it so horrible to use a photo manipulated by the source--especially if you know exactly how and why it was manipulated, and you still have access to the original? This manipulation seems rather benign, too. Why must it be "removed from your photo archives"?
For example, the moon landing is a subject of many conspiracy theorists who claim it was fabricated. A doctored image (esp. by NASA) published just gives them another reason to argue that there was never a moon-landing as all the images from it are obviously fake. Second, any reporter must verify his, or her sources, otherwise they are subject to manipulation and if a source is falsifying information, for whatever re…
that information must not be used as the reported cannot know to which degree was the information tampered with
Yet, in this case the reporter knows to which degree the information was tampered with - and the reporter has no problem verifying it either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For example, the moon landing is a subject of many conspiracy theorists who claim it was fabricated. A doctored image (esp. by NASA) published just gives them another reason to argue that there was never a moon-landing as all the images from it are obviously fake. Second, any reporter must verify his, or her sources, otherwise they are subject to manipulation and if a source is falsifying information, for whatever re…
Conspiracy theorists don't need reasons to argue. that information must not be used as the reported cannot know to which degree was the information tampered with Yet, in this case the reporter knows to which degree the information was tampered with - and the reporter has no problem verifying it either.
Yes, but that's still no reason to release a known "fake" image. Also, you can tag it with captions and disclosures, and someone might still link to the image as "look, there's no antenna on his head unlike other photos, proving the landing is a fake".
"Yet, in this case the reporter knows to which degree the information was tampered with - and the reporter has no problem verifying it either."
Publications have a no-doctored-images policy, it doesn't allow for exceptions, even if the length of the manipulation is known, especially when the original is available.
Well that's a very interesting article to bring out facts. There are at least a billion people out there who still think this guy: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg is Neil Armstrong. Also there is another half-a-billion or so which thinks man never landed on moon. Darn the fluff, get the truth. Upvoted.
Citation needed. It looks to me like only a small gang of wingnuts are part of the "moon landing conspiration believers" (I never met one). Like s slight portion of those believing that 9/11 was a CIA/Israeli job, or that there isn't any biological evolution.
Well that's a very interesting article to bring out facts. There are at least a billion people out there who still think this guy: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg is Neil Armstrong. Also there is another half-a-billion or so which thinks man never landed on moon. Darn the fluff, get the truth. Upvoted.
Pardon my ignorance, but why is it so horrible to use a photo manipulated by the source--especially if you know exactly how and why it was manipulated, and you still have access to the original? This manipulation seems rather benign, too. Why must it be "removed from your photo archives"?
For example, the moon landing is a subject of many conspiracy theorists who claim it was fabricated. A doctored image (esp. by NASA) published just gives them another reason to argue that there was never a moon-landing as all the images from it are obviously fake. Second, any reporter must verify his, or her sources, otherwise they are subject to manipulation and if a source is falsifying information, for whatever re…
If crops, borders, rotations, etc. constitute "doctoring" then virtually every publicity photo NASA releases has been doctored. And if those minor transformations aren't allowed then surely none of the composite photos from the Mars probes are acceptable either, right? Compositing is way more invasive than cropping and rotating.
At any rate, NASA has published the raw version of all their photos and therefore, everything is verifiable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For example, the moon landing is a subject of many conspiracy theorists who claim it was fabricated. A doctored image (esp. by NASA) published just gives them another reason to argue that there was never a moon-landing as all the images from it are obviously fake. Second, any reporter must verify his, or her sources, otherwise they are subject to manipulation and if a source is falsifying information, for whatever re…
Conspiracy theorists don't need reasons to argue. that information must not be used as the reported cannot know to which degree was the information tampered with Yet, in this case the reporter knows to which degree the information was tampered with - and the reporter has no problem verifying it either.