DISCOVER Magazine. Science, Technology and The Future
Current Issue
Subscribe Today »
  • Renew
  • Give a Gift
  • Archives
  • Customer Service
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Newsletter
  • Health & Medicine
  • Mind & Brain
  • Technology
  • Space
  • Human Origins
  • Living World
  • Environment
  • Physics & Math
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Podcast
  • RSS
Bad Astronomy
« Half a million visitors
Rep. Schiff speaks out against NASA budget cuts »

Render a man unto the Moon

‘

BABlog reader Fernando Rodriguez at San Luis Potosí, México, pointed out to me an image (via digg.com) of Buzz Aldrin on the Moon… sorta. It’s actually an amazingly rendered computer graphic by Andrea Bertaccini, obviously a very talented computer artist. I could tell right away it was fake; on the real one you can see lunar dust all over Aldrin’s suit. There are other telltale signs. Can you figure them out? The comments on digg.com have lots of hints, and a side-by-side comparison of the real image and the artwork.

The computer image was posted on the CG Society of Digital Artists forum, and in fact they have a huge number of incredibly cool images there. Go take a look.’

Share

March 22nd, 2006 11:03 PM by Phil Plait in Astronomy, Cool stuff, Humor, NASA, Time Sink | 34 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

34 Responses to “Render a man unto the Moon”

  1. 1.   Kuwaiti Demon Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 12:00 am

    The first thing that made me go “hmmm”: the astronauts watch is showing the ubiquitous “smiley-time” of 10:10 ;-)

  2. 2.   Kuwaiti Demon Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 12:17 am

    Oh, and the extra astronaut on the moon!!!

  3. 3.   Kuwaiti Demon Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 12:34 am

    OK, I’m wrong. I just looked at the original picture, and apparently what I thought was a third man on the moon is actually in the original: it looks like the American Flag. There seems to be two standing frames and both of which look like the flag, I’m referring to the one towards the end of the long shadow?

    Anyhow, apart from the clean suit and the lack of depth in the wrinkles in it, the image of the astronaut appears to have had a fill-in flash to soften the shadows, it also looks grain-less compared to the original?

  4. 4.   PK Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 3:35 am

    1. I think there is an extra astronaut in this picture: the photographer, the subject, and the guy in the reflection of the helmet (this is definitely an astronaut, and cannot be the photographer, as he has his own separate shadow).

    2. The cross-hairs don’t bleed.

    3. There’s a “$1.50″ sign in the moon dust (bottom left corner).

    Other than that, I don’t know (I haven’t put the original next to it, since that would be cheating…)

  5. 5.   Valhar2000 Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 4:11 am

    Well, the only difference I can see between this one and the original is that the original looks faded, which is what I would expect from such an old picture. Apart from this, I can’t see anything fake about the fake.

    This will undoubtedly spark a new wave of conspiracy theories, I’m sure. Soon we’ll have people saying that the moon hoax was itself a hoax, and that the landings were not faked in 1969, but in 2005!

  6. 6.   Valhar2000 Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 4:13 am

    And to think that SciFi movies in the 60′s assumed we would have thinking robots by now but would not have computer graphics better than those from Pacman…

  7. 7.   Brion Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 4:43 am

    Just two astronauts, and two shadows. (The sun is at Aldrin’s back; it’s his own shadow that’s prominently visible in the helmet reflection.)

  8. 8.   JohnB Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 6:07 am

    … but why bother ? what was wrong with the original true image ??

  9. 9.   RobertP Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 6:44 am

    One tell-tale sign: the CG Aldrin is wearing an embroidered Apollo 11 patch; the real Aldrin wore a silk-screened beta cloth version.

    Embroidered patches were not worn by any crew during Apollo as a result of lessons learned from the Apollo 1 fire. The sewn patches were however vacuum packed and carried onboard as post-flight souvenirs.

  10. 10.   PK Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 6:53 am

    D’oh! Of course you’re right, Brion. Never do anything before morning coffee…

  11. 11.   Dwight Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 7:34 am

    All someone needs to do is render the ladder descent by Armstrong as it would appear on a 525 30fps colour camera. Animation anyone?

  12. 12.   Shawn S. Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 7:49 am

    So the moon landing WAS faked!!! I KNEW IT!!!

    *reels from a sucker punch from Buzz*

    Okay, okay, was just kidding…

  13. 13.   Irishman Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 9:41 am

    PK, you seem to think the prominent shadow in the middle of the reflection is from the photographer. This is incorrect. That is Buzz’s shadow. Armstrong is the photographer, and he is the astronaut in the background of the reflection. Perspective is skewed because of the curve of the helmet. It looks like that astronaut is too far back, but in fact he is not.

    Kuwaiti Demon, there are two items that look like flags, but only one is a flag. That is the one nearest Armstrong’s reflection, positioned in the sky (it looks free floating since the pole doesn’t show up well in the reflection). The other “flag” is actually the Solar Wind Experiment. This is a strip of mylar stretched vertically. The mylar is slightly warped, causing the top part to reflect sunlight toward the camera but the lower part is not and blends into the background of the dirt. Ergo, it looks like a flag.

  14. 14.   George Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 10:08 am

    What a nice image.

    Here is a low res. view of the original….http://web.mit.edu/16.00/www/aec/images/Suits/apollosuit5.gif

    The shadows are an obvious problem, as per a prior post.

    The lunar soil color would not likely be so different in the reflection off the visor.

  15. 15.   Thomas Siefert Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 11:01 am

    Count the stars on the flag patch on his shoulder….

  16. 16.   PK Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 11:07 am

    Irishman: I already conceded my stupidity on that one.

    Thomas: 50, as it should be… or were there less states in ’69?

  17. 17.   Thomas Siefert Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 11:34 am

    No, I just wanted to see if someone had counted them, I’m too lazy…. :-D

    Sorry……..

  18. 18.   Jamie Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 11:41 am

    The image is too sharp, and the lighting is (subjectively) too good. kind of vague, but it’s hard to quantify. The outline of the suit is extremely sharp, and the white balance renders the suit a near perfect color. In short, there aren’t enough flaws, at least, that’s my take.

  19. 19.   Thomas Siefert Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 11:54 am

    Nope, that’s it, I refuse to stare more at those two pictures comparing them.

    Just tell me; what’s wrong with this picture? http://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=moonba4ij.jpg

  20. 20.   Kuwaiti Demon Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 1:26 pm

    Irishman: yes, I remember now – the experiments of the first Apollo lunar landing included the foil for the solar wind. I looked up information on the missions landing site (Source:Lunar Sourcebook, Heiken, Vaniman & French – 1991), and I have scanned the appropriate map and uploaded it to Flickr:

    http://static.flickr.com/47/116884350_cb560e858f_o.jpg

    Where:
    LM: Landing Module
    ALSCC: Apollo Lunar Surface Close-up Camera
    SWC: Solar Wind Composition Experiment
    PSE: Passive Seismic Experiment
    LRRR: Laser Ranging Retroreflector
    TV: TV Camera

    OK, IMHO I still say the weakest aspects – aside from the clean suit – are the lighting as well as the flat wrinkles and the watch, both of which appear to have been painted on the suit.

    But it is still a stunning image!

  21. 21.   Rumour Mongerer Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 1:31 pm

    Just goes to show that we finally have the technology to fake moon landings in 1969. :)

  22. 22.   Irishman Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 3:49 pm

    Nobody has pointed out there’s something wrong with the glove on his right hand (the down one). Look at the thumb and pinky.

  23. 23.   SFwriter Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 4:36 pm

    Thomas Siefert Says:

    Just tell me; what’s wrong with this picture? http://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=moonba4ij.jpg

    Well, that BA guy is obviously too clumsy to have ever qualified for NASA’s programmes… :mrgreen:

  24. 24.   Brian Says:
    March 23rd, 2006 at 6:28 pm

    I wonder how many people are aware that Alan Bean, who was on the Apollo 12 mission, later became a full-time artist. Most of his paintings these days deal with the Apollo missions. Go have a look at his website:

    http://www.alanbeangallery.com/

    No, he is not paying me to make this post.

  25. 25.   icemith Says:
    March 24th, 2006 at 6:17 am

    I think George is forgeting the reason why the color of the soil is different in the visor view.It is because it has a gold coating as part of the Solar filter.

    Ivan.

  26. 26.   Richard B. Drumm Says:
    March 24th, 2006 at 7:31 am

    The biggest (for me at least) clue is the heads of the rivets on his suit. The reflected image is always basically the same. There SHOULD, however, be foreground objects reflected in them, blocking part of the pitch black sky. For instance, just to the right of the wristwatch is one which would certainly have the right hand/arm reflected in it. To the right of the helmet is another which would have the helmet blocking part of the sky.

    Irishman:
    There IS something wrong with that right hand, but not just the thumb & pinkie, it’s all the fingers, the wrinkles of the fabric aren’t “right” somehow. The shadows are a tad too dark…
    Rich

  27. 27.   Richard B. Drumm Says:
    March 24th, 2006 at 7:34 am

    OK, now I’ve spotted a bit of folding in the thumb & index finger of that hand which is the same bit of image, cloned in PhotoShop. Ouch! She could easily have done something freehand to cover this…
    Rich

  28. 28.   Irishman Says:
    March 24th, 2006 at 8:19 am

    The hand looks flat, not curved. The thumb looks even with the rest of the hand, not offset like it should be. Yes, the wrinkles look off, and repeated. But I think the not-curved hand is more telling than repeated wrinkles.

  29. 29.   Kaptain K Says:
    March 24th, 2006 at 8:46 am

    All I can say is WOW!!!

    The early birds got all the good lines. :-(

  30. 30.   George Says:
    March 24th, 2006 at 4:17 pm

    icemith, there is a subtle difference. I knew of the visors color.

    Notice in the following image how the reflection seen, barely, on the far right side is not so gold in color.
    http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/fullimage.jsp?photoId=S69-31743

    Also, here is another image which does show the gold color, but, notice how everything is golden (contrary to the rendered image).

    Also, notice the lunar soil is blue, due to light from the host blue sun (ok, I’m joking on that one). ;)

  31. 31.   George Says:
    March 24th, 2006 at 4:18 pm

    oops, the second image wasn’t entered…sorry
    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0212/as17-140-21391.jpg

  32. 32.   Irishman Says:
    March 27th, 2006 at 12:12 pm

    George, I’m not sure I follow you. Note that in your first linked pic, that shows the Apollo helmet *without the sunscreen*. You can see through the clear face shield, and see the head rest in the back of the helmet. That picture is irrelevant for the moon images, because the visor is down for those pictures.

    Compare to the High Res original image here:
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5903HR.jpg

    The soil in the reflection shows the same characteristic of being more golden than the non-reflection soil. In fact, the only thing in the reflection that really stands out to me is the very near reflections at the bottom – the arm and controls for the suit. Look closely – the suit controls have knobs on top of the box, but in the reflection the knobs are missing. Notice also the difference in the shape of the hand.

  33. 33.   Andrea Bertaccini Says:
    April 4th, 2006 at 10:42 am

    Hi at All
    Thanks for all commets obout my image
    Here you can find the real comparsion:

    http://forums.cgsociety.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=91095

    Best regards

  34. 34.   BobR Says:
    August 4th, 2006 at 1:31 am

    I know this is waaay late, but… in regard to the overall “golden cast” of the shadows and objects in the pictures, it’s because the light which fills in the shadows is reflected from the gold foil insulation on the LEM, which as you can see from the reflection in the visor, is brightly lit by the sun. The function of the foil is to reflect up to 50% of the sun’s energy from the spacecraft thus protecting it from the intense heat. The gold foil is what’s lighting the front of Aldrin’s spacesuit, much like a “fill-in flash” is used in normal photography to lighten shadows when you’re photographing in the direction of the sun.

    This same golden cast can be seen in other photos taken in the vicinity of the LEM, but it’s most apparent in this well-known picture.

Leave a Reply





    • About Bad Astronomy


      Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He's written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic and fights the abuse of science, but his true love is praising the wonders of real science.


      The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking, movie reviews, and all that) can be found here.


      Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com


       
      Keep Libel Laws out of Science
       
       Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009.


    • Science Getaways


      Science Getaways: Vacation with your brain!


    • Subscribe to BA


      Subscribe to Bad Astronomy using RSS! RSS feed button


    • Death from the Skies!


      Order a copy of Death from the Skies! from Amazon, or Barnes and Noble.

      "If things worked the way I wanted them to, any reporter about to do another 'sensational' story on deadly meteors would consult this volume, and bang! common sense would find its way into the news. How strange would that world be?"
      -- Adam Savage, Mythbusters


      "Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
      -- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot Uprising


    • Recent Posts

      • Maiden flight for ESA’s Vega rocket tonight
      • Another interactive way to scale the Universe
      • An ear to the ocean
      • The staring eye of a crescent moon
      • A hoopy frood
    • Social/Networking/Cool Stuff


      Google+


       Twitter




       Facebook


    • Post Categories

    • Archives

    • Blogroll

      • Bad Astronomy (old site)
      • Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum
      • BAFacts Archive
      • Commenting Policy
      • Computer Support
      • Contact Information
      • DM: 80 Beats
      • DM: Cosmic Variance
      • DM: Discoblog
      • DM: Gene Expression
      • DM: NERS
      • DM: Science Not Fiction
      • DM: The Intersection
      • DM: The Loom
      • James Randi Educational Foundation
      • My use of the word "denier"
      • Planetary Society Blog
      • Politics and Religion posts
      • Press Kit
      • Q&BA Archive
      • The Antivax Bible
      • Universe Today
    • RSS DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space

      • Maiden flight for ESA’s Vega rocket tonight | Bad Astronomy
      • Another interactive way to scale the Universe | Bad Astronomy
      • The staring eye of a crescent moon | Bad Astronomy
      • When the Moon hits your apse in a way-cool time lapse | Bad Astronomy
      • Funhouse galaxy | Bad Astronomy
    • RSS DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom

      • A Planet of Viruses: Autographed Book Sale
      • Animal Friendships: My cover story for Time magazine
      • The Future of E-books–podcast of my interview on Wisconsin Public Radio
      • Thursday, February 16: Science and social media panel in New York
      • A Scientific Jonah: My profile of Joy Reidenberg in tomorrow’s New York Times


  • Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us