10 ms·

Why it's so hard to find a photo of Neil Armstrong on the moon

494 points by damohasi 14y ago

dsr12 14y ago
very insightful article. Do newspapers refuse to publish handout pictures that were manipulated by the source even if there was no wrong intention?
- erez 14y ago
  Here's a very comprehensive archive of images that have been manipulated by the source, or by the publisher: http://www.fourandsix.com/photo-tampering-history/ http://www.fourandsix.com/photo-tampering-history/
- xefer 14y ago
  Every single picture we've ever seen from the Hubble has been intensely manipulated, but that is rarely even mentioned. The manipulation in that one picture of Aldrin is irrelevant in my opinion.
teebs 14y ago
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"?
- muppetman 14y ago
  I wondered that too. I guess if your photo archives are supposed to be the bastion of utter truth (i.e. no manipulated one) then it makes sense, because unless you mark is as "edited" or similar, other users/people that come across the photo would assume it to be untouched. It depends on how precise you want to be I suppose.
- irahul 14y ago
  > Pardon my ignorance, but why is it so horrible to use a photo manipulated by the source One reason I don’t want to see it: That’s not Neil. That’s Buzz Aldrin. The main objection is that's not a photo of Neil.
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  Journalistic ethics basically.
  - nicholassmith 14y ago
    I'd just woken up so I didn't qualify this as much as I should have, all though the tl;dr is just the three words above. Newspapers are based around a mission of delivering facts (or at least the facts they want to share), and when that core rule is violated the inherent trust is broken. So when someone is misquoted, a story manufactured and so on then the journalists have failed, are fired and cast out of the community (mostly). Photography was one of the biggest changes to news reporting as it allowed facts to be visually disseminated as well, but because they're essentially a snapshot of the moment as it had happened modification of almost any kind was immediately held up as a no-no. Some newspapers are getting a bit more progressive, but every 3-6 months in the photography community there's a discussion regarding whether the tools photographers use should be allowed in photojournalism, or whether in the central mission of delivering the truth photo modification, even in a trivially form, is counter as how can you say the changes haven't gone further. For the more curious: http://www.petapixel.com/2012/06/15/time-travel-and-ethical-photojournalism/ http://www.petapixel.com/2012/06/15/time-travel-and-ethical-... http://www.petapixel.com/2012/03/08/should-photo-contests-require-original-image-files/#more-47805 http://www.petapixel.com/2012/03/08/should-photo-contests-re... http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/08/ethics.html http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/08/ethics.html http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/22/opinion/phones-instagram-apps-stern/ http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/22/opinion/phones-instagram-a...
  - thinkingisfun 14y ago
    Generally yeah, but in this case? If they 100% knew for a fact that the sky above his head was black, then adding some black padding is fine. Maybe not from a photography standpoint, but from a journalistic one? Come on..
    - nicholassmith 14y ago
      This is why it's so contentious, it improves the photo but it's no longer original. Oddly from a photographic side that's fine, but photo journalistic standpoint it's no longer the moment that was capture but a modified version. It's a thorny issue with grey areas.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- erez 14y ago
  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 reason, that information must not be used as the reported cannot know to which degree was the information tampered with. It might have been just a minor cosmetic touch-up, or it might have been a complete fabrication. So while the demand to remove from the archive a famous 43-year old image sounds odd, it's very much on par with a practise that any decent publication must follow or risk the integrity of their whole publication.
  - tjoff 14y ago
    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.
    - erez 14y ago
      "Conspiracy theorists don't need reasons to argue." 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.
    - raphman 14y ago
      Actually, it is the other way round - not the journalist has to know how much tampering has occured - I, the reader, have to trust the newspaper to get everything right in their reporting. Unlike in science, journalists often can not or do not want to reveal their sources and attribute every statement. Therefore, I need to be able to trust the newspaper as a whole that they have appropriate safeguards in place to detect and avoid false information and tampered images. By being holier than the pope, the newspaper supports this trust.
monsterix 14y ago
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 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.
- priestc 14y ago
  Technically you can see Neil in the reflection of Buzz's visor in that photo.
- wazoox 14y ago
  > Also there is another half-a-billion or so which thinks man never landed on moon. 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.
  - TheTruthIsHere 14y ago
    Obviously you live in US, get your information from mainstream media (instead of doing your own research on the Web) and belong to the upper middle class. That's in my humble experience the only type of guy, who would never meet anyone disagreeing with government propaganda. In Latin America, East Europe, Arabic countries, Russia and Japan ~90% of the people I talked to believe 9/11 was an inside job. As for the moon landings - I'm one of those conspiracy believers. I've looked at what NASA&Co has to say and it's far from convincing. Here's a good site IMHO proving Armstrong and the other 20 astronauts never left Earth orbit: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo4.html http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo4.html .
    - brazzy 14y ago
      Well, you're officially a self-admitted idiot. Congratulations. That website is a hoot. A self-proclaimed photographer who doesn't know what scatter light is.
pfedor 14y ago
I always assumed that the poor composition of the original AS11-40-5903 (and many other photos from the Moon which suffer from the same problem) was because every pixel was precious, so they didn't want the uniformly black sky to take up any larger fraction of the image area than necessary. You can always add more black, unlike the rocks or equipment or whatever which was captured in the bottom of the picture. BTW in AS11-40-5903 they took it too far and cut Buzz Aldrin's antenna.
- batista 14y ago
  >I always assumed that the poor composition of the original AS11-40-5903 (and many other photos from the Moon which suffer from the same problem) was because every pixel was precious, so they didn't want the uniformly black sky to take up any larger fraction of the image area than necessary. It wasn't pixels -- it was emulsion film. Nor was it that precious. What would they do with a photo of more rock/equipment and less space? I guess the photos was more for a documentation/publicity use than of actual scientific interest.
  - brudgers 14y ago
    The film was precious. Every gram of film had to be brought back into orbit by Eagle in lieu of some onboard instrument, backup system, additional fuel and air or sample from the surface.
    - batista 14y ago
      A kilogram of film is still too much film. And they have too many useless and bad photos taken so it doesn't seem good pictures was their priority.
      - brudgers 14y ago
        In my work, I shoot a lot of photographs when I visit a project site during design and construction. My priority is not composition or aesthetics, it's documentation so that I can answer questions which I didn't know I would have when I went so that I can avoid another trip. They sent pilots, to the moon. They had a couple of hours. That's all. Film allowed them to collect a large amount of data which hundreds or thousands of scientists could later analyze. Some rocks are more interesting than others. But it's better to have the scientists decide which to take a closer look at on the next landing.
hastur 14y ago
Because it's all a conspiracy. There isn't and never was a moon. See here a British youth journalist challenge Buzz Aldrin about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kKFYTBo6kA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kKFYTBo6kA
- moreati 14y ago
  For the record that "youth journalist" is Ali G, a character of Sacha Baron Cohen - the same guy who plays Borat.
- sp332 14y ago
  I prefer this brief interview about the "hoax" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7KgdehBBsw&t=4m20s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7KgdehBBsw&t=4m20s
  - xefer 14y ago
    I love this video. Aldrin was a test pilot for crying out loud. They could have used his brass balls in that scene from Glengarry Glen Ross. Did that dope really think he was going to intimidate him?
jahewson 14y ago
Hey, it actually is a photo of Neil Armstrong on the moon - you can just about see him taking the photo, reflected in Buzz's sun visor :)
- jpdoctor 14y ago
  I concur! In fact, I think this would have made an excellent release of the "first man on the moon" photo; It's just a recrop of their original: http://i.imgur.com/PyiKT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/PyiKT.jpg, so no disallowed manipulation.
  - keithpeter 14y ago
    Nice idea for my wallpaper (1080p) for next week. I fiddled the curves a bit on the inset photo, but still need to do something with that blue/violet cast on the bottom right. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8403291/armstrongs-picture-of-aldrin-cropped-inset-1920.jpg http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8403291/armstrongs-picture-of-aldrin...
jyap 14y ago
In fact, now that you know this picture was manipulated by the source, I’d urge you to have it removed from your photo archives. Permanently. Uh, Neil Armstrong had a Hasselblad camera strapped to his chest. I'd say excuse the lack of sky composition. Besides, the original picture also captures the lander in the composition. Wouldn't you want more photographic detail in a moon landing operation photo instead of one which is more harmoniously composed but contains useless black sky? But like I said, he's taking pictures with a camera strapped to his chest. .. And who cares if it isn't a picture of Neil? It is the best representation of the feat and overall project. Besides, he took the picture.
- batista 14y ago
  >.. And who cares if it isn't a picture of Neil? Editors searching for pictures of Neil? Because he was the one that died recently and they have to write stories about him?
  - jyap 14y ago
    The only people who care that it isn't a picture of Neil Armstrong are: - People who know it isn't a picture of Neil Armstrong and feel like they need to point that out. - People who are bothered by the slight inaccuracy that it isn't a picture taken of him. Either way, he took the picture. He took one of the most famous pictures. If the caption to the picture reads "Buzz Aldrin as captured by Neil Armstrong", who cares? Have you ever seen a caption which says that it is Neil Armstrong? I haven't. People just assume it is because he is the best known since he was the first man on the moon.
    - batista 14y ago
      >If the caption to the picture reads "Buzz Aldrin as captured by Neil Armstrong", who cares? I _effin_ care. E.g. I want a picture of Neil Armstrong for my article. Not a picture that _he_ took of somebody else. Not a quick sketch he did of his cat. I want a picture of HIM, preferably on the moon. That he "took the picture" is meaningless for the purposes of _showing_ the man in action. If I was writing about Knuth I wouldn't post a picture of McCarthy he took and caption it "John McCarthy as captured by D. Knuth". As someone who used to do photo editing for a newspaper, I assure you that this is Photo Editing 101. Your arguments are loco.
nrbafna 14y ago
This is from a reddit ama where the OP has worked through Apollo 1-14. He claims it was Neil in the photo - http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/xove1/iama_97_year_old_that_worked_apollo_missions_1/c5o9ph6 http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/xove1/iama_97_year_old...
- ralfd 14y ago
  This is actually rather important. But I guess there is a high chance he misremembered? Hm. When they sent out a correction this should be able to track down?
  - nrbafna 14y ago
    Well. What he says about including stripes in the astronaut suits for future missions checks out - http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-CDRStripes.html http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-CDRStripes.html
- dustincoates 14y ago
  There were a ton of huge inaccuracies in that AMA. Here's a few things that were pointed out to be wrong: http://es.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/xp6il/methusela1915_is_a_97_year_old_who_worked_apollo/ http://es.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/xp6il/methusela1915_i... I wouldn't rely on that for any real information. EDIT: Not to mention the fact that the suit says "E Aldrin" on it. I have a hard time believing they swapped suits, too.
  - jeroen 14y ago
    High-res NASA version of the picture where the name on the suit is visible: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg
  - defen 14y ago
    Not vouching one way or the other for the AMA, but he claims that Armstrong is in the "astronaut saluting the flag" picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Buzz_salutes_the_U.S._Flag.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Buzz_salu...), not the one where you can see the "E Aldrin" name tag.
brudgers 14y ago
One idea: Use this picture of Neil shot immediately after his historic walk on the moon. After reading the Armstrong family's statement last night, that's the photo which expresses the legacy he wished. He looks ready to wink back. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5528HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5528HR.jpg
- jeffool 14y ago
  If I still worked in news (I worked in TV) I'd go with this, definitely. "Neil Armstrong, seen here back in the lunar module after his historic moon walk..." Also, the picture of Armstrong climbing back in the Lunar Module is fine. Conversely, to those arguing the use of a reflective shot of Aldrin's visor? I think that's worth including if I'd also included that shot inside the LM. An close up of this picture, showing Alrin's helmet, backpack, and shoulders, reading "Neil Armstrong took most of the photographs on the moon that had an astronaut in them. However he can be seen clearly in the reflection of Buzz Aldrin's visor here." Just pair it with a matching (size-wise) photograph, unzoomed.
  - brudgers 14y ago
    What I love about the photograph is that it captures his total wonderment at having just fn walked on the fn moon. He and Aldrin still have to get their spacecraft off the Lunar surface, rendezvous with the command module, fly back to Earth, and land the damn thing. It captures a timelessness moment in between.
    - angstrom 14y ago
      If nothing else, the following plaque sums the humbling nature of someone who accurately captured the gravitas of the moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A11.plaque.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A11.plaque.jpg Today, some of the flags planted on the moon still stand upright. However, 40 years of intense UV radiation have bleached them all white. The plaque remains.
      - 14y ago
anuraj 14y ago
Why is it that nobody could land on moon after 1972? After all cold war was still on. All moon landings happened between 1969-72. It is really unbelievable that US would forego such an advanced technology that nobody else had. There are many unanswered questions here.
- thmzlt 14y ago
  Didn't you watch Transformers: Dark of the Moon?
- derleth 14y ago
  > Why is it that nobody could land on moon after 1972? Lack of political will to fund it. Funding wars was more important than funding science. > There are many unanswered questions here. Sadly, no. We know precisely what happened, and that's the depressing part.
  - anuraj 14y ago
    Has US ever been in an either or situation? Defence budget in 2010 is $680B, and cost of a moon landing is $18B in 2010 dollars. Given that both are deficit funded, and dollar can be printed at will, is this convincing?
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - derleth 14y ago
      > Given that both are deficit funded, and dollar can be printed at will This bespeaks a gross lack of knowledge about how a modern economy works.
      - anuraj 14y ago
        Perhaps you may find it gross to understand why US has been able to spend well beyond its means - Does dollar denominated trade ring a bell?
jakejake 14y ago
I don't really have a problem with the photo as long as the caption doesn't say it's Neil. It's a historic moment that everybody should recognize. He is known for this event and even took the photo. As for the doctoring, I don't find it unethical. I don't have a problem straitening a crooked photo, adjusting the contrast, etc to make the photo visually appealing. That's not the same as adding a person. I understand journalists want "the truth" but with film there are so many artistic decisions made when processing a photo anyway. Maybe the truth is that is was very dark or bright. Should darkroom manipulation be skipped and the photo be blown out or solid black because that's the real truth? If there was a scratch on the negative I don't mind if it's repaired as long as it isn't maliciously trying to trick us.
- archgoon 14y ago
  The 'doctoring' is only slightly above the level of adding a border around the image. If this is doctoring, then all Mars photos's are 'doctored', as they're stitched together from much smaller photos.
  - jakejake 14y ago
    I have to agree. If they had added the earth or some detail which wasn't in the original photo then I might feel differently. But just adding some black to fix the composition issues seems ok to me.
mukaiji 14y ago
cue in the obnoxious conspiracy theorists...
natarius 14y ago
Thanks for the post. Already updated: http://changemakrs.com/NeilArmstrong http://changemakrs.com/NeilArmstrong
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
wyclif 14y ago
This Warrior of a Dead World: Gene Wolfe's literary portrait of Neil Armstrong http://silkandhornheresy.blogspot.com/2012/08/this-warrior-of-dead-world-gene-wolfes.html http://silkandhornheresy.blogspot.com/2012/08/this-warrior-o...
tommy88 14y ago
idiots, its all staged moon stuff, just like 9-11 was phoney video... hence the "september clues documentary"... go look it up and watch it you idiots
tommy88 14y ago
idiots go watch SEPTEMBER CLUES DOCUMENTARY already
tommy88 14y ago
idiots go watch SEPTEMBER CLUES DOCUMENTARY already
tommy88 14y ago
idiots go watch SEPTEMBER CLUES DOCUMENTARY already
tommy88 14y ago
idiots go watch SEPTEMBER CLUES DOCUMENTARY already
tommy88 14y ago
idiots go watch SEPTEMBER CLUES DOCUMENTARY already
tommy88 14y ago
idiots go watch SEPTEMBER CLUES DOCUMENTARY already
darkstalker 14y ago
In this photo: http://apple.copydesk.org/uploads/2012/08/120826ArmstrongLem.jpg http://apple.copydesk.org/uploads/2012/08/120826ArmstrongLem... How come the flag is waving in a environment with no atmosphere ?
- iwwr 14y ago
  http://astroprofspage.com/archives/162 http://astroprofspage.com/archives/162 tl;dr the flag had embedded wires to keep it unfurled, also the pole was flexible and springy, it kept wobbling after it was planted in the ground
flyinRyan 14y ago
Because it's hard to find anything on the moon. Where would you look? Plus photos will be much lighter on the moon so a little solar breeze would probably send the photo flying for weeks.
gwern 14y ago
> Despite the vast attention paid to the astronauts’ psychological profiles and their ability to work in teams, the Apollo 11 crew verged on the dysfunctional. While Armstrong and Aldrin didn’t quite match Stoppard’s Scott and Oates, there was a fierce behind-the-scenes battle between them to be first to set foot on the Moon. Early plans were for Aldrin, as module pilot, to step out first, but one version reported by Smith has it that Armstrong, as mission commander, lobbied more vigorously than Aldrin, and Nasa backed him up because he would be ‘better equipped to handle the clamour when he got back’ and, more mundanely, because his seat in the lunar module was closer to the door. Aldrin paid Armstrong back by taking no photographs of him on the Moon: the only manually taken lunar image of the First Man on the Moon is in one of many pictures Armstrong snapped of Aldrin, showing himself reflected in the visor of Aldrin’s spacesuit. Asked about this omission later, Aldrin lamely replied: ‘My fault, perhaps, but we had never simulated this in training.’ Later, Aldrin put it about that Armstrong’s First Sentence might have been a bureaucratic concoction. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n17/steven-shapin/what-did-you-expect http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n17/steven-shapin/what-did-you-expe...

494 points by damohasi 14y ago

dsr12 14y ago

very insightful article. Do newspapers refuse to publish handout pictures that were manipulated by the source even if there was no wrong intention?

erez 14y ago
Here's a very comprehensive archive of images that have been manipulated by the source, or by the publisher: http://www.fourandsix.com/photo-tampering-history/ http://www.fourandsix.com/photo-tampering-history/
xefer 14y ago
Every single picture we've ever seen from the Hubble has been intensely manipulated, but that is rarely even mentioned. The manipulation in that one picture of Aldrin is irrelevant in my opinion.

teebs 14y ago

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"?

muppetman 14y ago
I wondered that too. I guess if your photo archives are supposed to be the bastion of utter truth (i.e. no manipulated one) then it makes sense, because unless you mark is as "edited" or similar, other users/people that come across the photo would assume it to be untouched. It depends on how precise you want to be I suppose.
irahul 14y ago
> Pardon my ignorance, but why is it so horrible to use a photo manipulated by the source One reason I don’t want to see it: That’s not Neil. That’s Buzz Aldrin. The main objection is that's not a photo of Neil.
nicholassmith 14y ago
Journalistic ethics basically.
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  I'd just woken up so I didn't qualify this as much as I should have, all though the tl;dr is just the three words above. Newspapers are based around a mission of delivering facts (or at least the facts they want to share), and when that core rule is violated the inherent trust is broken. So when someone is misquoted, a story manufactured and so on then the journalists have failed, are fired and cast out of the community (mostly). Photography was one of the biggest changes to news reporting as it allowed facts to be visually disseminated as well, but because they're essentially a snapshot of the moment as it had happened modification of almost any kind was immediately held up as a no-no. Some newspapers are getting a bit more progressive, but every 3-6 months in the photography community there's a discussion regarding whether the tools photographers use should be allowed in photojournalism, or whether in the central mission of delivering the truth photo modification, even in a trivially form, is counter as how can you say the changes haven't gone further. For the more curious: http://www.petapixel.com/2012/06/15/time-travel-and-ethical-photojournalism/ http://www.petapixel.com/2012/06/15/time-travel-and-ethical-... http://www.petapixel.com/2012/03/08/should-photo-contests-require-original-image-files/#more-47805 http://www.petapixel.com/2012/03/08/should-photo-contests-re... http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/08/ethics.html http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/08/ethics.html http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/22/opinion/phones-instagram-apps-stern/ http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/22/opinion/phones-instagram-a...
- thinkingisfun 14y ago
  Generally yeah, but in this case? If they 100% knew for a fact that the sky above his head was black, then adding some black padding is fine. Maybe not from a photography standpoint, but from a journalistic one? Come on..
  - nicholassmith 14y ago
    This is why it's so contentious, it improves the photo but it's no longer original. Oddly from a photographic side that's fine, but photo journalistic standpoint it's no longer the moment that was capture but a modified version. It's a thorny issue with grey areas.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
erez 14y ago
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 reason, that information must not be used as the reported cannot know to which degree was the information tampered with. It might have been just a minor cosmetic touch-up, or it might have been a complete fabrication. So while the demand to remove from the archive a famous 43-year old image sounds odd, it's very much on par with a practise that any decent publication must follow or risk the integrity of their whole publication.
- tjoff 14y ago
  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.
  - erez 14y ago
    "Conspiracy theorists don't need reasons to argue." 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.
  - raphman 14y ago
    Actually, it is the other way round - not the journalist has to know how much tampering has occured - I, the reader, have to trust the newspaper to get everything right in their reporting. Unlike in science, journalists often can not or do not want to reveal their sources and attribute every statement. Therefore, I need to be able to trust the newspaper as a whole that they have appropriate safeguards in place to detect and avoid false information and tampered images. By being holier than the pope, the newspaper supports this trust.

monsterix 14y ago

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 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.

priestc 14y ago
Technically you can see Neil in the reflection of Buzz's visor in that photo.
wazoox 14y ago
> Also there is another half-a-billion or so which thinks man never landed on moon. 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.
- TheTruthIsHere 14y ago
  Obviously you live in US, get your information from mainstream media (instead of doing your own research on the Web) and belong to the upper middle class. That's in my humble experience the only type of guy, who would never meet anyone disagreeing with government propaganda. In Latin America, East Europe, Arabic countries, Russia and Japan ~90% of the people I talked to believe 9/11 was an inside job. As for the moon landings - I'm one of those conspiracy believers. I've looked at what NASA&Co has to say and it's far from convincing. Here's a good site IMHO proving Armstrong and the other 20 astronauts never left Earth orbit: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo4.html http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo4.html .
  - brazzy 14y ago
    Well, you're officially a self-admitted idiot. Congratulations. That website is a hoot. A self-proclaimed photographer who doesn't know what scatter light is.

pfedor 14y ago

I always assumed that the poor composition of the original AS11-40-5903 (and many other photos from the Moon which suffer from the same problem) was because every pixel was precious, so they didn't want the uniformly black sky to take up any larger fraction of the image area than necessary. You can always add more black, unlike the rocks or equipment or whatever which was captured in the bottom of the picture. BTW in AS11-40-5903 they took it too far and cut Buzz Aldrin's antenna.

batista 14y ago
>I always assumed that the poor composition of the original AS11-40-5903 (and many other photos from the Moon which suffer from the same problem) was because every pixel was precious, so they didn't want the uniformly black sky to take up any larger fraction of the image area than necessary. It wasn't pixels -- it was emulsion film. Nor was it that precious. What would they do with a photo of more rock/equipment and less space? I guess the photos was more for a documentation/publicity use than of actual scientific interest.
- brudgers 14y ago
  The film was precious. Every gram of film had to be brought back into orbit by Eagle in lieu of some onboard instrument, backup system, additional fuel and air or sample from the surface.
  - batista 14y ago
    A kilogram of film is still too much film. And they have too many useless and bad photos taken so it doesn't seem good pictures was their priority.
    - brudgers 14y ago
      In my work, I shoot a lot of photographs when I visit a project site during design and construction. My priority is not composition or aesthetics, it's documentation so that I can answer questions which I didn't know I would have when I went so that I can avoid another trip. They sent pilots, to the moon. They had a couple of hours. That's all. Film allowed them to collect a large amount of data which hundreds or thousands of scientists could later analyze. Some rocks are more interesting than others. But it's better to have the scientists decide which to take a closer look at on the next landing.

hastur 14y ago

Because it's all a conspiracy. There isn't and never was a moon. See here a British youth journalist challenge Buzz Aldrin about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kKFYTBo6kA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kKFYTBo6kA

moreati 14y ago
For the record that "youth journalist" is Ali G, a character of Sacha Baron Cohen - the same guy who plays Borat.
sp332 14y ago
I prefer this brief interview about the "hoax" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7KgdehBBsw&t=4m20s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7KgdehBBsw&t=4m20s
- xefer 14y ago
  I love this video. Aldrin was a test pilot for crying out loud. They could have used his brass balls in that scene from Glengarry Glen Ross. Did that dope really think he was going to intimidate him?

jahewson 14y ago

Hey, it actually is a photo of Neil Armstrong on the moon - you can just about see him taking the photo, reflected in Buzz's sun visor :)

jpdoctor 14y ago
I concur! In fact, I think this would have made an excellent release of the "first man on the moon" photo; It's just a recrop of their original: http://i.imgur.com/PyiKT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/PyiKT.jpg, so no disallowed manipulation.
- keithpeter 14y ago
  Nice idea for my wallpaper (1080p) for next week. I fiddled the curves a bit on the inset photo, but still need to do something with that blue/violet cast on the bottom right. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8403291/armstrongs-picture-of-aldrin-cropped-inset-1920.jpg http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8403291/armstrongs-picture-of-aldrin...

jyap 14y ago

In fact, now that you know this picture was manipulated by the source, I’d urge you to have it removed from your photo archives. Permanently. Uh, Neil Armstrong had a Hasselblad camera strapped to his chest. I'd say excuse the lack of sky composition. Besides, the original picture also captures the lander in the composition. Wouldn't you want more photographic detail in a moon landing operation photo instead of one which is more harmoniously composed but contains useless black sky? But like I said, he's taking pictures with a camera strapped to his chest. .. And who cares if it isn't a picture of Neil? It is the best representation of the feat and overall project. Besides, he took the picture.

batista 14y ago
>.. And who cares if it isn't a picture of Neil? Editors searching for pictures of Neil? Because he was the one that died recently and they have to write stories about him?
- jyap 14y ago
  The only people who care that it isn't a picture of Neil Armstrong are: - People who know it isn't a picture of Neil Armstrong and feel like they need to point that out. - People who are bothered by the slight inaccuracy that it isn't a picture taken of him. Either way, he took the picture. He took one of the most famous pictures. If the caption to the picture reads "Buzz Aldrin as captured by Neil Armstrong", who cares? Have you ever seen a caption which says that it is Neil Armstrong? I haven't. People just assume it is because he is the best known since he was the first man on the moon.
  - batista 14y ago
    >If the caption to the picture reads "Buzz Aldrin as captured by Neil Armstrong", who cares? I _effin_ care. E.g. I want a picture of Neil Armstrong for my article. Not a picture that _he_ took of somebody else. Not a quick sketch he did of his cat. I want a picture of HIM, preferably on the moon. That he "took the picture" is meaningless for the purposes of _showing_ the man in action. If I was writing about Knuth I wouldn't post a picture of McCarthy he took and caption it "John McCarthy as captured by D. Knuth". As someone who used to do photo editing for a newspaper, I assure you that this is Photo Editing 101. Your arguments are loco.

nrbafna 14y ago

This is from a reddit ama where the OP has worked through Apollo 1-14. He claims it was Neil in the photo - http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/xove1/iama_97_year_old_that_worked_apollo_missions_1/c5o9ph6 http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/xove1/iama_97_year_old...

ralfd 14y ago
This is actually rather important. But I guess there is a high chance he misremembered? Hm. When they sent out a correction this should be able to track down?
- nrbafna 14y ago
  Well. What he says about including stripes in the astronaut suits for future missions checks out - http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-CDRStripes.html http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-CDRStripes.html
dustincoates 14y ago
There were a ton of huge inaccuracies in that AMA. Here's a few things that were pointed out to be wrong: http://es.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/xp6il/methusela1915_is_a_97_year_old_who_worked_apollo/ http://es.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/xp6il/methusela1915_i... I wouldn't rely on that for any real information. EDIT: Not to mention the fact that the suit says "E Aldrin" on it. I have a hard time believing they swapped suits, too.
- jeroen 14y ago
  High-res NASA version of the picture where the name on the suit is visible: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg
- defen 14y ago
  Not vouching one way or the other for the AMA, but he claims that Armstrong is in the "astronaut saluting the flag" picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Buzz_salutes_the_U.S._Flag.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Buzz_salu...), not the one where you can see the "E Aldrin" name tag.

brudgers 14y ago

One idea: Use this picture of Neil shot immediately after his historic walk on the moon. After reading the Armstrong family's statement last night, that's the photo which expresses the legacy he wished. He looks ready to wink back. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5528HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5528HR.jpg

jeffool 14y ago
If I still worked in news (I worked in TV) I'd go with this, definitely. "Neil Armstrong, seen here back in the lunar module after his historic moon walk..." Also, the picture of Armstrong climbing back in the Lunar Module is fine. Conversely, to those arguing the use of a reflective shot of Aldrin's visor? I think that's worth including if I'd also included that shot inside the LM. An close up of this picture, showing Alrin's helmet, backpack, and shoulders, reading "Neil Armstrong took most of the photographs on the moon that had an astronaut in them. However he can be seen clearly in the reflection of Buzz Aldrin's visor here." Just pair it with a matching (size-wise) photograph, unzoomed.
- brudgers 14y ago
  What I love about the photograph is that it captures his total wonderment at having just fn walked on the fn moon. He and Aldrin still have to get their spacecraft off the Lunar surface, rendezvous with the command module, fly back to Earth, and land the damn thing. It captures a timelessness moment in between.
  - angstrom 14y ago
    If nothing else, the following plaque sums the humbling nature of someone who accurately captured the gravitas of the moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A11.plaque.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A11.plaque.jpg Today, some of the flags planted on the moon still stand upright. However, 40 years of intense UV radiation have bleached them all white. The plaque remains.
    - 14y ago

anuraj 14y ago

Why is it that nobody could land on moon after 1972? After all cold war was still on. All moon landings happened between 1969-72. It is really unbelievable that US would forego such an advanced technology that nobody else had. There are many unanswered questions here.

thmzlt 14y ago
Didn't you watch Transformers: Dark of the Moon?
derleth 14y ago
> Why is it that nobody could land on moon after 1972? Lack of political will to fund it. Funding wars was more important than funding science. > There are many unanswered questions here. Sadly, no. We know precisely what happened, and that's the depressing part.
- anuraj 14y ago
  Has US ever been in an either or situation? Defence budget in 2010 is $680B, and cost of a moon landing is $18B in 2010 dollars. Given that both are deficit funded, and dollar can be printed at will, is this convincing?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - derleth 14y ago
    > Given that both are deficit funded, and dollar can be printed at will This bespeaks a gross lack of knowledge about how a modern economy works.
    - anuraj 14y ago
      Perhaps you may find it gross to understand why US has been able to spend well beyond its means - Does dollar denominated trade ring a bell?

jakejake 14y ago

I don't really have a problem with the photo as long as the caption doesn't say it's Neil. It's a historic moment that everybody should recognize. He is known for this event and even took the photo. As for the doctoring, I don't find it unethical. I don't have a problem straitening a crooked photo, adjusting the contrast, etc to make the photo visually appealing. That's not the same as adding a person. I understand journalists want "the truth" but with film there are so many artistic decisions made when processing a photo anyway. Maybe the truth is that is was very dark or bright. Should darkroom manipulation be skipped and the photo be blown out or solid black because that's the real truth? If there was a scratch on the negative I don't mind if it's repaired as long as it isn't maliciously trying to trick us.

archgoon 14y ago
The 'doctoring' is only slightly above the level of adding a border around the image. If this is doctoring, then all Mars photos's are 'doctored', as they're stitched together from much smaller photos.
- jakejake 14y ago
  I have to agree. If they had added the earth or some detail which wasn't in the original photo then I might feel differently. But just adding some black to fix the composition issues seems ok to me.

mukaiji 14y ago

cue in the obnoxious conspiracy theorists...

natarius 14y ago

Thanks for the post. Already updated: http://changemakrs.com/NeilArmstrong http://changemakrs.com/NeilArmstrong

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

wyclif 14y ago

This Warrior of a Dead World: Gene Wolfe's literary portrait of Neil Armstrong http://silkandhornheresy.blogspot.com/2012/08/this-warrior-of-dead-world-gene-wolfes.html http://silkandhornheresy.blogspot.com/2012/08/this-warrior-o...

tommy88 14y ago

idiots, its all staged moon stuff, just like 9-11 was phoney video... hence the "september clues documentary"... go look it up and watch it you idiots

tommy88 14y ago