Hadley : A study in fakery by Colin Rourke

[robdog]

Good day everyone.

I hope this post is not too much off-topic, but it does relate to Prof. Colin Rourke, and specifically to information that he has posted alongside his Mons Hadley musings.

This document from his personal web site msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/spot.pdf is a one-page PDF containing two images.

On the left is an image correctly attributed as STS103-731-017 taken in 1999. It shows Claude Nicollier carrying out work on the Hubble telescope.

On the right is an image correctly attributed as AS15-88-11865 taken in 1971. It shows Jim Irwin saluting the American flag during the Apollo 15 mission.

Both images have been cropped from the originals.

Prof. Rourke then invites us – according to the title of his document – to “Spot the difference”.

I am baffled, because apart from being photographs of different people on different missions taken 28 years apart, what differences am I supposed to be spotting?

I fail to see his point, and I’m wondering; what has motivated Prof. Rourke to bother uploading this, to be frank, bizarre document?

Am I missing something obvious? Maybe it’s all a bit of a Professorial joke and/or I’m having a massive sense of humour failure?

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

I can see Nicollier's face.

[slang]

Apr 14, 2010 15:02:55 GMT -4 robdog said:

Prof. Rourke then invites us – according to the title of his document – to “Spot the difference”

No moon dust on Nicollier, must be fake.
No stars.
No cameras near Irwin's head, must be fake.
Definitive evidence for wires in Nicollier's image, you can even spot the hooks!

[drewid]

The suit on the left has red chevron bands around it.
The flag is in a different place.

??

OOOO I know, Irwin is stood on the moon and Nicollier isn't. I knew I'd get there in the end.

[thetart]

The flag is fluttering on the rh photo. That proves it. Probably.

[scooter]

One's digital and the other is film? Or the apparent "brightness" of the shuttle suit?

[tedward]

Heck of an argument from an academic though, using the argument style of a youtube "expert".

[robdog]

Seriously though, this document (msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/spot.pdf) is so utterly odd isn't it?

So odd in fact that I felt compelled to email Prof Rourke to ask him, in a nutshell, what his point is. I do hope he responds otherwise I feel that this will forever be an itch that I cannot scratch.

[chew]

My turn!

One is being burned alive by intense cosmic radiation, the other is at a cool 98.6F beneath the omnipotent protection of the Van Allen Belts?

[donnieb]

There *is* no difference! That proves the "Apollo" picture was taken in Earth orbit, just like the Hubble/STS picture!

Yeah, that's it.

[robdog]

Apr 16, 2010 4:05:07 GMT -4 robdog said:

Seriously though, this document (msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/spot.pdf) is so utterly odd isn't it?

So odd in fact that I felt compelled to email Prof Rourke to ask him, in a nutshell, what his point is. I do hope he responds otherwise I feel that this will forever be an itch that I cannot scratch.

Well well. Professor Rourke has kindly replied explaining his reasoning behind the document linked to above.

I'm kind of ignorant of the etiquette regarding this kind of thing. Is it allowed for me to just go right ahead and quote from Prof. Rourke's email to me, or am I obliged to seek his permission first?

[trebor]

You could summarise his point (if he actually had one) in your own words.

[raven]

Please do. This confuses the heckles cakes out of me.

[Ginnie]

With a little work, I think I was able to represent more clearly what Mr. Rourke was trying to do.
This project took me many weeks of digital manipulation and research to achieve these results. Hopefully this will clear up any ambiguities.... ;D ;D

[carpediem]

I still don't get it.