Duane Daman Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Give me a break Lamson ... Anybody who knows what they're doing can photoshop anything ... Just look at the phony Apollo photographs and you will see the proof of that unhappy fact . "Of course I don't trust you! After what you said you would email Jenny about me!" Now that has to be just about the funniest thing I ever read on the entire internet Dave .. YOU playing the victim ! .. Too funny ! Here's the bottom line on this ... You can't prove that these alleged e-mails are from Jarrah's photo analysis source , Jenny , by sending them to a third party , because no matter who you choose to send them to , they don't know this woman personally and therefore would have no way of knowing or proving if they really came from her or not .... Even if they e-mailed the address you supplied , it could be anybody pretending to be her , on your behalf .. or even you , for that matter . I was born at night but I wasn't born last night , so don't try to pull your scam with me .. There is only one person who will be able the verify if these alleged e-mails came from Jenny ... and that would obviously be Jarrah White ... So if you are not willing to send them to him , then I am calling your bluff and accusing you of running a scam ... If these e-mails are really from Jenny and they say exactly what you claim they do , then you have nothing to worry about ... Jarrah will just have to except the fact that the dodgy photoshopped picture you posted here , was enough to fool her into believing that they both were wrong about the Apollo 11 shadow anomaly .. Do we have a deal then ? ... Send the e-mails to Jarrah ... and if he can verify that they are really from his source , then I will apologize to you publically ... But if you continue to refuse to send them to him , or edit them in any way , then I will know you are runing a scam and I will post that fact all over the YouTube comments section . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Do we have a deal then ? ... Send the e-mails to Jarrah ... and if he can verify that they are really from his source , then I will apologize to you publically ... But if you continue to refuse to send them to him , or edit them in any way , then I will know you are runing a scam and I will post that fact all over the YouTube comments section . Thanks for continuing to try and blackmail me, but no deal Duane. You've already been accusing me of lying on Youtube anyway. You'll just make yourself look decidedly foolish if you continue to do so, then have to sheepishly go back and apologise on each forum you accused me of lying on. I don't think anyone could eat that much humble pie. As you won't accept a disinterested 3rd party (moderator of your choice or Jack White) to verify my email, I'll bide my time and wait for Jenny to get back to me. That is the honourable thing to do. Not threatening to accuse someone of being a xxxx on public forums over a matter you know nothing about, and which, to be quite frank, has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with you. Why I should have to jump through your hoops to defend myself against your false accusations of lying I don't know. Sadly the old adage is quite appropriate - "If you throw enough mud, some of it will stick." You keep on throwing the mud, and are forcing me to prove my innocence. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Give me a break Lamson ... Anybody who knows what they're doing can photoshop anything ... Just look at the phony Apollo photographs and you will see the proof of that unhappy fact . You deserve no break Duane, you are simply blowing smoke. So show us just how easy it is, uing a HIGh RES filem, not some crappy web jpg. Educate us. And just so you know I do "know what I'm doing" in Photoshop since I alter photographs each and evrey day, so your smoke will not fool me. Pony up Dunae, put your money where your mouth is at least once in your life. Prove us all wrong and show us just how easy it is to fake a believable shadow in PS..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 (edited) I think it's pretty clear that Dave is doing his best to verify the e-mail to you, Duane. I don't know about in the US, but AFAIK in Australia it is an offense to forward a private e-mail onto a third party without the permission of the originator. I would suggest Dave does NOT forward the e-mail onto anyone (including disinterested third parties) without permission. Dave is contacting the originator for permission to make the contents public; that seems fair to me. So all the mods here are against you Duane? What about Antti Hynonen? I haven't checked but I don't recall him even ever making a post with regard to Apollo. What about Kathy Beckett? Again, I don't think she has ever made a post regarding Apollo. John Geraghty? Unsure. Gary Loughran? Again, unsure. Seems to me you are making wild assumptions here Duane. Your site was hacked? You were banned because you were too close to the truth? It seems everyone is out to get you. Now, back to the image. IIRC, Dave posted the original image and then the modified image, explaining what he had done and why he did it - to illustrate and highlight his point. Duane claims this is being deceptive / dishonest, that the original image should be able to stand on it's merits. Duane, you do realise that by your own standards you are painting Jack with the same brush? He, too, has cropped or altered images. he has done this to illustrate or highlight his claims, but he has nevertheless done it: So which is it Duane? Are they both being deceptive, or are they both simply illustrating their claims? Edited April 20, 2007 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 I think it's pretty clear that Dave is doing his best to verify the e-mail to you, Duane. I don't know about in the US, but AFAIK in Australia it is an offense to forward a private e-mail onto a third party without the permission of the originator. I would suggest Dave does NOT forward the e-mail onto anyone (including disinterested third parties) without permission.Dave is contacting the originator for permission to make the contents public; that seems fair to me. Evan The legal aspect hadn't even occurred to me, I saw it more as a moral issue. Thinking about it you are very probably right, so I shall wait until permission or otherwise from Jenny is forthcoming. I'm still not very happy that I feel forced down this route into proving my innocence, what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 And of course, we eagerly await Duane's reply to my post about alteration of images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 It's real nice of you to come to Dave's rescue here Evan , but I don't plan on getting side tracked with your distraction tactics at the moment ... You guys are very good at what you do , I will give you that .. but Dave has made a claim that he obviously is not prepared to back up ... There is nothing illegal or immoral about forwarding e-mails and I am in no way "blackmailing" him ...That is an utterly absurd statement to make .. This is just his way of tying to slither out of this because he obviously has someting to hide . Jarrah White knows this woman personally because he had her do some photo analysis for him, that Dave now claims she has changed her mind about , via these alleged e-mails ... We are not talking about top secret classified information here ... This person went on the public record as supporting Jarrah White's analysis and then Dave showed up on YouTube to try to discredit his work with his ridiculous claims of having alleged e-mails from her which refute her initial findings . I merely want the record set straight on this ... But if Dave can not or will not forward either Jenny's alleged e-mails to Jarrah , or at least the e-mail address he used to allegedy contact her , then Jarrah and I both will be forced to assume that he is lying about this and we will expose his scam . Dave keeps sending me PM's about this and I would condsider his last one to me to be a threat ... I won't post it here , as it is private , but I will post my reply to him , as this is the only way to put this issue to rest . Here is my PM to Dave . You left YouTube because you were getting your ass kicked by the opposition ... but you don't know the half of it , cuz there's more to come . Forward the e-mail address to me and the e-mails to Jarrah ... That's the only way you can prove you're not lying and running a ridiculous scam . Lamson ... Dave's photo will be dealt with soon enough by someone more quilified than I , to prove that he is being dishonest . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 (edited) It seems as though Dave wants to play the PM game now ... I guess he's hoping to keep all of this private after all ... I won't breach his confidentuality by posting his messages to me , but I will post mine in return to him , just so you all know that he is still refusing to forward the alleged e-mails onto the person he accused his photo analysis source Jenny , as being an "actress " used for his MoonFaker video .. So not only has he tried to character assassinate Jarrah but also Jenny , in his ridiculous scam . Do you really want to keep this up Dave ? ... Or would you like to admit to everyone here and on YouTube what you have done ? My latest PM to Dave . "You declined my offer because you are lying .. and I have already proven that by calling your bluff ... If you really had these e-mails from Jenny , you wouldn't have hesitated to shove them down Jarrah's throat ... So how does it feel to be out smarted Dave ? ... It's not illegal to forward e-mails .. but you will now latch onto that excuse , supplied by Evan , to try to weasel your way out of this .. Jarrah knew were slinging BS from the beginning about these e-mails ... and will prove it , to your public humiliation ... You stopped posting on YouTube because I exposed your scam ... Go ahead and prove me wrong Dave ... Send Jarrah the e-mails ... You won't do it , because you know if you do , he will contact Jenny to get the truth . I knew quite awhile ago that you would stoop to any level to 'win' ... and you have now proven me right about that also ." Edited April 20, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 (edited) Okay, I have wasted enough of my time on this stupidity for one day . Dave has now run out of excuses as to why he refuses to forward the alleged e-mails onto the man he has accused of being dishonest in his MoonFaker video , Jarrah White ... and now Dave wants me to believe that the reason he won't send the e-mails to Jarrah is because he doesn't want to embarrass him !! ... I have heard some beauts in my life but never anything as pathetic as that one . ... Fess up to what you've done Dave , or send the e-mails on to Jarrah ... At this point you really don't have any other options ... except to continue to look foolish . Here is my last and hopefully final PM to Dave . "Now you want me to believe that you don't want to embarrass Jarrah ?!?! You have got to be kidding !! ... You would give anything to embassass him if you could ... That was the entire purpose of your scam about the e-mails .... Sending these allged e-mails to any third party , including Jack White , will in no way prove that they came from Jarrah's source , Jenny ... I already explained that to you ... The only person who can verify that the e-mails are from Jenny , is Jarrah ... So if you really have e-mails proving his source changed her opinion about her analysis , then kindly forward them onto to Jarrah so this silly game of yours can end .... If you are telling the truth , why are you even hesitating about this ? ... Here is your golden opportunity to humiliate not only Jarrah , but me as well ... So go ahead and do it ... PROVE ME WRONG and I will gladly admit my mistake here and on YouTube ... But if you continure to refuse to forward them to him , then I would say your game is over with , and you lost more than you bargained for ." Edited April 20, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 If he doesn't want to make the email public without the author's permission, that's his right and it's not evidence of anything other than him having morals. Trying to wear him down until he gives up his morals just makes you look like a jerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 I'm not sidetracking the issue Duane. This e-mail business is about another forum, not this one. That's distracting from the issue on this forum - the image Dave has presented. So, back to my original question - if Dave is being less than honest, then so is Jack. If Jack is being honest, then so is Dave. Which is it Duane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 (edited) Evan ... Jack has never STRETCHED OR ALTERED a shadow in any of his Apollo studies to 'win' an argument ... Jack's use of photoshop and cropping the phony Apollo photos is done for one purpose only ... to enhance the anomalies , so we can see them better ... Jack does NOT bend or STRETCH shadows or alter the photos in any respect . What Dave did by altering the A15 shadow to try to match the position of the astronot was dishonest , whether you choose to admit it or not ... and the scam he is running with these alleged e-mails never should have come to this forum ... He's the one who brought this here because he knew by doing so , he could try to make me out as the bad guy in all of this and get the support from all of you ... Part of this worked , as he knew it would , because you are now protecting and defending him and using distration tactics to side step this issue . But trying to defend him or protect him won't work ... Another member on YouTube made the claim that he had seen these alleged e-mails ... Not true , because Dave PMed me here telling me he never sent him the e-mails ... Now Dave has made the claim that he sent this member her e-mail address because it is the public domain and can be found through google ... If this is true , then there would be nothing "imoral" about him forwarding her e-mail address onto Jarrah and me . If Dave doesn't at least forward her address , which he claims is public domain , then we will all know he doesn't really have her address , the e-mail claims are bogus and he got caught running a scam just to try to humiliate conspiracy researcher , Jarrah White . The photo Dave used to allegedly persuade Jenny that her analyisis was wrong , will be exposed for what it is also , very shortly ... and I will be sure to post that evidence here as soon as I have it . Edited April 21, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 Evan ... Jack has never STRETCHED OR ALTERED a shadow in any of his Apollo studies to 'win' an argument ... Jack's use of photoshop and cropping the phony Apollo photos is done for one purpose only ... to enhance the anomalies , so we can see them better ... Jack does NOT bend or STRETCH shadows or alter the photos in any respect .What Dave did by altering the A15 shadow to try to match the position of the astronot was dishonest , whether you choose to admit it or not ... and the scam he is running with these alleged e-mails never should have come to this forum ... He's the one who brought this here because he knew by doing so , he could try to make me out as the bad guy in all of this and get the support from all of you ... Part of this worked , as he knew it would , because you are now protecting and defending him and using distration tactics to side step this issue . But trying to defend him or protect him won't work ... Another member on YouTube made the claim that he had seen these alleged e-mails ... Not true , because Dave PMed me here telling me he never sent him the e-mails ... Now Dave has made the claim that he sent this member her e-mail address because it is the public domain and can be found through google ... If this is true , then there would be nothing "imoral" about him forwarding her e-mail address onto Jarrah and me . If Dave doesn't at least forward her address , which he claims is public domain , then we will all know he doesn't really have her address , the e-mail claims are bogus and he got caught running a scam just to try to humiliate conspiracy researcher , Jarrah White . The photo Dave used to allegedly persuade Jenny that her analyisis was wrong , will be exposed for what it is also , very shortly ... and I will be sure to post that evidence here as soon as I have it . Duane Let me explain this to you one more time and perhaps it will finally sink in. This is not a difficult problem to understand. Most normal people can understand it. Daves Apllo 15 photograph shows the astronaut photographed from a low camera angle relative to the surface he is standing on...in other words the subject astronaut is standing on higher ground than the photographer astronaut. Given the lower camera position the shadow of the subject astronaut is "compressed" in height. When Dave enlarged the photo in the vertical axis it changed the shadow to look like it would if the photograher and the subject were on level ground. Nothing sinister, he just made it easier to see what the shadow really looked like. You can check this for yourself by simply observing a shadow and changing your eye leve from a normal standing position to putting your eyes at ground level. Now I fully expect some nosense answer from you. I also expect you will promise evidence to show whay Dave is wrong. How you think you can understand any of this is beyond me but I'm sure you will tellus that you do despite of the fact that your comments on this thread ( and others) shows exactly the opposite. However I relish the chance to provide emperical evidence to refute ANYTHING you may offer...simply because unless you accept Daves position YOU WILL BE WRONG REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU POST! So please as Dirty Harry would say...Go ahead and make my day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 What Dave did by altering the A15 shadow to try to match the position of the astronot was dishonest , whether you choose to admit it or not ... No it's not - but you continuing to argue the point demonstrates that you simply appear to lack the spatial awareness to understand why the crop was stretched, and what it helped to show. and the scam he is running with these alleged e-mails never should have come to this forum ... He's the one who brought this here because he knew by doing so , he could try to make me out as the bad guy in all of this and get the support from all of you ... Part of this worked , as he knew it would , because you are now protecting and defending him and using distration tactics to side step this issue .Wrong on several counts. Well, wrong on all counts actually. You first mentioned the email saga in this post. Why did you mention it on this forum? Why bore all the members here with your false accusations? I simply exercised the right to defend myself against you spreading false rumours about me.I don't think there's a great deal of protection going on here Duane. I think the mods have cut you an incredible amount of slack, probably something to do with the fact that I can't be bothered alerting them via PM to your actions. But trying to defend him or protect him won't work ... Another member on YouTube made the claim that he had seen these alleged e-mails ... Not true , because Dave PMed me here telling me he never sent him the e-mails ... Perhaps you're mis-remembering what actually happened? I did NOT send him the email, I sent him the email address. He doesn't even claim to have seen the email itself. I've since sent Jarrah the email address as well, though I don't recall him asking for it. He can now contact Jenny himself and get verification that what I said was correct. Then it will be case closed. Now Dave has made the claim that he sent this member her e-mail address because it is the public domain and can be found through google ... If this is true , then there would be nothing "imoral" about him forwarding her e-mail address onto Jarrah and me .I have sent the address on to Jarrah. You, on the other hand, attempted to blackmail me into sending it to you by claiming you would flood Youtube by calling me a xxxx if I didn't. You also said you'd contact Jenny and tell her about "what I'd been up to on Youtube", and since you've hardly shown any common sense or reason about this issue I can only guess what vitriol it might contain. I was polite when I spoke to her, I've asked the other 2 people (Jarrah and Svector) to show the same courtesy. If I thought you capable of behaving in a similar fashion, I'd have sent you the address too. You are of course welcome to ask Jarrah for it.If Dave doesn't at least forward her address , which he claims is public domain , then we will all know he doesn't really have her address , the e-mail claims are bogus and he got caught running a scam just to try to humiliate conspiracy researcher , Jarrah White . As stated, I don't give in to blackmail that easily. The photo Dave used to allegedly persuade Jenny that her analyisis was wrong , will be exposed for what it is also , very shortly ... and I will be sure to post that evidence here as soon as I have it . I can't wait. Will give me another excuse to go for a walk on the beach the next fine day we have - this time I may video this easily recreatable effect instead of taking a photo, since you accused me of photoshopping the shadows in the last image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 I've received permission from Jenny Heller to publicise our correspondence, with two provisos: (a) her email address is blanked out ( there is an amendment to the last line With that in mind, here is her response and my initial email to her. I've deleted the line of her response that she wanted changed in blue - email addresses are blanked out in red. For readability, here is a transcript of her reply. I've added in the text that she wanted changed from her original email, it's shown in italics. Hi Dave,What really fascinates me, is the amount of interest that conspiracy theories re: the moon landing generates. Movies, documentaries etc it is a fascinating phenomena in itself. You should take into consideration the background to Jarrah’s work, he made this documentary as one of his class assignments, as such students have to create a piece with little or no resources at their disposal. Jarrah is particularly interested in things technical, and based most of his works that particular year, around the concept that the lunar landing was faked. He required footage of a so called ‘expert’ to support the story line he wished to persue, and as a teacher (at the coledge at that time) he asked if I would be willing to do the interview for his assignment. I agreed as he did not have access to a ‘real authority’. The reality is that I am not even a professional photographer, the interesting thing is that when a person is portrayed as an expert on film, people tend to believe it (I am a fine arts teacher). What would be useful to you would be to get an analysis done by a true optical / physics specialist who could factor in things like: lense distortion, surface refraction, light angle, light source distance, surface curvature etc. I am sure that your is evidence that a similar photo can be taken with one light source that is equivatent [sic], can mount an argument to disprove Jarrah’s but it would require a specific type of lens, which is claimed not to be the lens used by Nasa for these photos. Regards Jenny Now that you have access to the whole email, it should be clear why I didn't want to print it without permission, regardless of the legal aspect. Jenny was a teacher at Jarrah's college - his video is a classroom assignment. Since I thought it might be construed as possibly contravening the confidentiality of the teacher/student relationship, I decided to err on the side of caution. Jenny obviously has no problem with her statement (except for revising her last sentence). I really hope this is the end to the accusations of lying. The thread has been dragged off topic for too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now