<i>One idea: Use this picture of Neil shot immediately after his historic walk on the moon.</i><p>After reading the Armstrong family's statement last night, that's the photo which expresses the legacy he wished.<p>He looks ready to wink back.<p><a href="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5528HR.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5528HR.jpg</a>
<i>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.</i><p>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.<p>.. 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.
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.<p>BTW in AS11-40-5903 they took it too far and cut Buzz Aldrin's antenna.
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"?
This is from a reddit ama where the OP has worked through Apollo 1-14. He claims it was Neil in the photo - <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/xove1/iama_97_year_old_that_worked_apollo_missions_1/c5o9ph6" rel="nofollow">http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/xove1/iama_97_year_old...</a>
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.<p>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.
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.
> 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.<p><a href="http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n17/steven-shapin/what-did-you-expect" rel="nofollow">http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n17/steven-shapin/what-did-you-expe...</a>
This Warrior of a Dead World: Gene Wolfe's literary portrait of Neil Armstrong <a href="http://silkandhornheresy.blogspot.com/2012/08/this-warrior-of-dead-world-gene-wolfes.html" rel="nofollow">http://silkandhornheresy.blogspot.com/2012/08/this-warrior-o...</a>
In this photo: <a href="http://apple.copydesk.org/uploads/2012/08/120826ArmstrongLem.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://apple.copydesk.org/uploads/2012/08/120826ArmstrongLem...</a><p>How come the flag is waving in a environment with no atmosphere ?
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.
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: <a href="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg</a> is Neil Armstrong. Also there is another half-a-billion or so which thinks man never landed on moon.<p>Darn the fluff, get the truth. Upvoted.
Because it's all a conspiracy. There isn't and never was a moon.<p>See here a British youth journalist challenge Buzz Aldrin about it: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kKFYTBo6kA" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kKFYTBo6kA</a>