New Apollo study

[Dave Greer]

No, people walking around on them makes them disapear.

Would those "people"moving around be the stagehands or the astro-actors ? ..

Duane - do you say that the area where the tracks were in 12447 is not covered with footprints in 11866? Do you say that the tracks behind the astronaut in 12447 are not same tracks that are visible in 11866?

The tracks behind the astronot are not the ones in question .

Every singe tire track tread in front of the astronot could not possibly have been completely covered over by kicked up dirt ... especially in the area where there are no bootprints .

We have all had this conversation before , so I don't see much point in rehasing it , as it never goes anywhere except around in circles .

Did you see the new evidence I posted in my earlier post? Very solid evidence that astronauts do kick up a lot of dust when walking. (And that was just when they passed each other once to swap places). Looks like a cut and dried case to me. Jack, do you have an opinion on this one if Duane is gracefully bowing out?

[Duane Daman]

[ Jack, do you have an opinion on this one if Duane is gracefully bowing out?

I believe this study might best describe Jack's opinion about the buggy tire tracks on the Apollo 15 moonset .

Edited September 17, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

[ Jack, do you have an opinion on this one if Duane is gracefully bowing out?

I believe this study might best describe Jack's opinion about the buggy tire tracks on the Apollo 15 moonset .

Jack started this thread to discuss his new study, I don't think it's asking too much to ask for an honest opinion of my response to his claim from the man himself, rather than you change the subject when you've already said you don't want to debate this specific issue. (Remember rule number 17 of a disinformationist you posted a few weeks ago? Change the subject?)

Jack, I believe I've shown the premise that the tyre tracks couldn't have been covered up by kicked up dust and bootprints to be a false one. Here it is again in case it gets buried.

This much dust got kicked up in just a few seconds as the astronauts swapped positions. Are you still claiming it is impossible for the tracks to get covered by bootprints and kicked up dust in the face of this?

Thanks

[Duane Daman]

I posted one of Jack's Apollo 15 moonset studies showing bogus buggy tires tracks .... I thought that was the subject .... but if you prefer this one instead , that's fine by me ....

I'm beginnning to think that you have absolutely no sense of humor Dave ....

[Dave Greer]

I posted one of Jack's Apollo 15 moonset studies showing bogus buggy tires tracks .... I thought that was the subject .... but if you prefer this one instead , that's fine by me ....

I'm beginnning to think that you have absolutely no sense of humor Dave ....

The subject is Jack's new study, one which you didn't want to participate in. If you want to discuss the photo you've posted, try one of the threads it's already been discussed in. For example,

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry92844

For someone who didn't want to participate, that's twice you've tried to steer this thread away from my rebuttal. Someone less suspicious than me might think you didn't like its content!

Here it is again.

Tracks clearly covered up by bootprints and lunar dust

[Duane Daman]

Don't be so touchy Dave ... I'm only trying to have some fun here .

I have already seen your your silly diagrams , three time now ... and no , I don't believe that the boot prints and some kicked up moonset dust would have completely obsured all of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang's tire tracks ... and no , I have absolutely no interest in rehashing this old argument .

So I will leave you to your diagrams now and hopefully Jack will answer your burning question very soon !

[Craig Lamson]

For someone who didn't want to participate, that's twice you've tried to steer this thread away from my rebuttal. Someone less suspicious than me might think you didn't like its content!

Of course Duane is running away. First he is simply not equipped to discuss the validity of the Apollo images. He MUST rely on types like White and Percy to do his thinking for him.

Second he cannot defend (and not understand) why White is being dishonest by cropping the images in the study that started this thread.

Third his limited understanding of the photographic process leaves him quite open to being mislead by those whom he thinks as experts.

Finally he cannot deal with the simple fact that foot traffic can obliterate tracks in surfaces such as the Lunar surface. Simple observation here on Earth at the beach or on a dusty dirt road proves this to be so.

Sad really.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

There is a vast difference between "running away" and not being interested in rehashing an old argument.

Second, Jack is not being dishonest by cropping the pictures ... He shows the foreground in question, which is the point of his study .... Believe it or not , I was actually smart enough to look at the high resolution photos also, before making up my mind about this study.

Third, no one is misleading me because I'm not a professional photographer or because I think they are experts .... My own eyes see the anomalies in the faked Apollo photos just fine .

Finally , I don't doubt that foot traffic can obliterate tracks in surfaces such as a Lunar set .. I just don't think in this particular case that the bootprints and moonset dust would have obliterated all of Chitty's tire tracks ....

Edited September 18, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

Second, Jack is not being dishonest by cropping the pictures...

But Duane, you basically accused Dave (IIRC) of being dishonest when he altered an image to explain a view. Never mind he showed the original unaltered view, and told people what he had done and why. You said something along the lines that there is no excuse for altering the image.

Jack did not show the complete, uncropped images. In fact, he labeled them with the full Apollo reference number without mentioning the cropping. This can give the impression that the image is the full, uncropped image.

If you look back in my work, I try to always label items as crops from an image, unless they are clearly a crop (e.g. an image of a boot rather than the whole astronaut). I might have missed one or two, but most always they are labeled.

In the current case, the cropping gives the impression that the images were taken from the same location. When we see the uncropped images, you can see significant differences in the two photographer positions / camera settings. Two images side-by-side, cropped and possibly resized, can give the unwary reader a false impression.

I have no problems with an image being cropped to show the detail you want... as long as you tell people it is cropped and preferably show the original uncropped image.

[Craig Lamson]

Second, Jack is not being dishonest by cropping the pictures...

But Duane, you basically accused Dave (IIRC) of being dishonest when he altered an image to explain a view. Never mind he showed the original unaltered view, and told people what he had done and why. You said something along the lines that there is no excuse for altering the image.

Jack did not show the complete, uncropped images. In fact, he labeled them with the full Apollo reference number without mentioning the cropping. This can give the impression that the image is the full, uncropped image.

If you look back in my work, I try to always label items as crops from an image, unless they are clearly a crop (e.g. an image of a boot rather than the whole astronaut). I might have missed one or two, but most always they are labeled.

In the current case, the cropping gives the impression that the images were taken from the same location. When we see the uncropped images, you can see significant differences in the two photographer positions / camera settings. Two images side-by-side, cropped and possibly resized, can give the unwary reader a false impression.

I have no problems with an image being cropped to show the detail you want... as long as you tell people it is cropped and preferably show the original uncropped image.

You are beating a dead horse Evan. Duane simply does not know what he is talking about.

Of course he is running away. This is not a rehash of some old argument, its a simple fact that the camera moved forward and that caused the foreground tracks ( what might have been left of them anyway) to be out of the frame. THIS is the argument Duane is running away from.

And the reason Duane is running away is that White was less than honest in his study by cropping images to hide important details. Duane says he studied the originals yet with his limited photography ability he was unable to grasp just WHY White was being dishonest. He says he made up his own mind...ok....and can see the anomalies just fine with his own eyes...yet here we see graphic proof to the contrary. He simply does not understand the subject matter at hand.

I guess the truth hurts.

[Duane Daman]

He simply does not understand the subject matter at hand.

I guess the truth hurts.

Craig thinks that if he repeats that sentence often enough it will make it true .... I understand the subject matter at hand just fine ... but I will recap it for you incase you don't .

Apollo was a photographic hoax .... The Apollo photographs were not taken on the Moon .... Jack White , Davd Percy and many other conspiracy researchers have proven this many times over ... You can't and never will accept this as being the truth , along with most people who were duped by nasa during their Apollo Project.

So yes, I guess the truth does hurt .... It hurts everyone , regardless of what they believe .

[Kevin M. West]

There is a vast difference between "running away" and not being interested in rehashing an old argument.

If you're not interested, the answer is to stay out of the thread, not to try to change the subject of someone else's discussion.

[Duane Daman]

There is a vast difference between "running away" and not being interested in rehashing an old argument.

If you're not interested, the answer is to stay out of the thread, not to try to change the subject of someone else's discussion.

Phunk ! ... My dear friend ! ... I didn't know that someone died and made you god of the Education Forum ... I thought that freedom of speech was still alive and well and allowed on the internet at least , and that I could post comments wherever I wanted to , as long as they don't break the forum rules ..

In the spirit of us all getting along now , having a good time and remembering our childhoods , I found the perfect fun thing just for you .

I'm sorry .. I didn't mean to leave you out of Evan's , Dave's and Jack's trip to the Moon in their new Moon mobile ... Hey , maybe Jack can scoot over a bit and make some room for you in the back !! ... and while you're making your very boring journey to the Moon, through that uninteresting STARLESS sky , here's a coloring book to keep you occupied during the ride .

I think the title of the book may have some secret cryptic meaning , don't you ? ... Like possibly referring to all of the Apollo astronots who were forced to lie for nasa .

[Craig Lamson]

There is a vast difference between "running away" and not being interested in rehashing an old argument.

If you're not interested, the answer is to stay out of the thread, not to try to change the subject of someone else's discussion.

Oh he is interested, he simply lacks the skill sto understand. Look at him quote White and Percy's "proofs". Given his sef-proclaimed ignorance when it comes to photography, how would he ever KNOW if White and Percy are correct? The answer is that he CAN'T. He is letting them think for him. Quite the open mind....

I've yet to see ANY empirical evidence posted by Jack White and the bit that has been posted by Percy has been debunked to the point that Percy had hide away behind his website and disable reader comments because his work was taking a beating. He is still missing in action when it comes to open public debate. That Percy hides away and White simply ignores the evidence that derails his theories is very telling indeed.

Duane says he can think and understand the subject matter at hand, and yet he states his ignorance. So either he has the photographic education and skill set to understand WHY his hero's are wrong, or he is simply tagging along blissful in his ignorance.

Tagging along .... and posting distractions ... what rule was htat again?

Edited September 18, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Kevin M. West]

There is a vast difference between "running away" and not being interested in rehashing an old argument.

If you're not interested, the answer is to stay out of the thread, not to try to change the subject of someone else's discussion.

Phunk ! ... My dear friend ! ... I didn't know that someone died and made you god of the Education Forum ... I thought that freedom of speech was still alive and well and allowed on the internet at least , and that I could post comments wherever I wanted to , as long as they don't break the forum rules ..

God of the education forum? Grow up. I didn't ban you, or report you, or do anything censorlike. I simply commented on your absurd behavior. You don't think there's something rude about attempting to change the subect of someone else's thread because it doesn't interest you? Go read another thread if this one is boring to you.