Duane Daman Posted October 4, 2007 Author Share Posted October 4, 2007 Here's his latest e-mail to me ... Not quite the one you're looking for , but it will have to do until he reads your latest attack . and I quote ... "The convex reflective surface of the astronauts visors will always reflect, only slightly distorted, the shape of the light source being shone onto it. Look at the ceiling strip lights reflected in Neil & Buzz's visors during indoors training at Houston. Ok they're a bit bent but still retain their fundamental source shape in the reflection. My understanding is that you would never get a photo of circular light ( the sun included) reflecting back off a visor, coming out as a hard-edged geometric shape. For me, that pentagon or square HAS to be the shape of the source light. And barn door lights fit well into that bracket. The metal leafs would be especially useful in stopping light from the side casting inconvenient shadows. Also the sun always reflects clear regular radial light spokes in every visor reflection of every astronaut facing the sun in every photo I've seen - except Apollo." BTW ... You will find those photo ID numbers here ... http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/Michaelstmark/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 (edited) Here's his latest e-mail to me ... Not quite the one you're looking for , but it will have to do until he reads your latest attack .and I quote ... "The convex reflective surface of the astronauts visors will always reflect, only slightly distorted, the shape of the light source being shone onto it. Look at the ceiling strip lights reflected in Neil & Buzz's visors during indoors training at Houston. Ok they're a bit bent but still retain their fundamental source shape in the reflection. My understanding is that you would never get a photo of circular light ( the sun included) reflecting back off a visor, coming out as a hard-edged geometric shape. For me, that pentagon or square HAS to be the shape of the source light. And barn door lights fit well into that bracket. The metal leafs would be especially useful in stopping light from the side casting inconvenient shadows. Also the sun always reflects clear regular radial light spokes in every visor reflection of every astronaut facing the sun in every photo I've seen - except Apollo." BTW ... You will find those photo ID numbers here ... http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/Michaelstmark/ I'll tell you what Dunae, If S.t Mark wants to debate this, here I am. However he will need to join this forum, or Apollohoax or BA, because I'm not going to play email games. He needs to speak directly and not through you. Also I will not be willing to debate this at Youtube simply because its a very poor means to debate. Oh and for Mr. St. Mark. Your files at photobucket do not constitute apollo image numbers. Again common practice is to supply the correct Apollo image numbers with the images you use to make a claim. Please supply these numbers. Oh, I see from your files WHY you can't supply the frame number for the A17 shot...its because it does not exist. Why? because you shot the image with a Fuji point and shoot from a computer or tv screen...correct? Which would account for the garbage quality ot the image... St. Mark can make the call. I'm available. Edited October 4, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Here's his latest e-mail to me ... Not quite the one you're looking for , but it will have to do until he reads your latest attack .and I quote ... "The convex reflective surface of the astronauts visors will always reflect, only slightly distorted, the shape of the light source being shone onto it. Look at the ceiling strip lights reflected in Neil & Buzz's visors during indoors training at Houston. Ok they're a bit bent but still retain their fundamental source shape in the reflection. My understanding is that you would never get a photo of circular light ( the sun included) reflecting back off a visor, coming out as a hard-edged geometric shape. For me, that pentagon or square HAS to be the shape of the source light. And barn door lights fit well into that bracket. The metal leafs would be especially useful in stopping light from the side casting inconvenient shadows. Also the sun always reflects clear regular radial light spokes in every visor reflection of every astronaut facing the sun in every photo I've seen - except Apollo." BTW ... You will find those photo ID numbers here ... http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/Michaelstmark/ I'll tell you what Dunae, If S.t Mark wants to debate this, here I am. However he will need to join this forum, or Apollohoax or BA, because I'm not going to play email games. He needs to speak directly and not through you. Also I will not be willing to debate this at Youtube simply because its a very poor means to debate. Oh and for Mr. St. Mark. Your files at photobucket do not constitute apollo image numbers. Again common practice is to supply the correct Apollo image numbers with the images youuse to make a claim. Please supply these numbers. Oh, I see from your files WHY you can't supply the frame number for the A17 shot...its because it does not exist. Why? because you shot the image with a Fuji point and shoot from a computer or tv screen...correct? Which would account for the garbage quality ot the image... St. Mark can make the call. I'm available. Duane, that sounds like a fair call, why dont you invite Mr St Mark to join. knowing next to nothing about photography I would look foward to the debate, and perhaps an education in the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 4, 2007 Author Share Posted October 4, 2007 (edited) Here's his latest e-mail to me ... Not quite the one you're looking for , but it will have to do until he reads your latest attack .and I quote ... "The convex reflective surface of the astronauts visors will always reflect, only slightly distorted, the shape of the light source being shone onto it. Look at the ceiling strip lights reflected in Neil & Buzz's visors during indoors training at Houston. Ok they're a bit bent but still retain their fundamental source shape in the reflection. My understanding is that you would never get a photo of circular light ( the sun included) reflecting back off a visor, coming out as a hard-edged geometric shape. For me, that pentagon or square HAS to be the shape of the source light. And barn door lights fit well into that bracket. The metal leafs would be especially useful in stopping light from the side casting inconvenient shadows. Also the sun always reflects clear regular radial light spokes in every visor reflection of every astronaut facing the sun in every photo I've seen - except Apollo." BTW ... You will find those photo ID numbers here ... http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/Michaelstmark/ I'll tell you what Dunae, If S.t Mark wants to debate this, here I am. However he will need to join this forum, or Apollohoax or BA, because I'm not going to play email games. He needs to speak directly and not through you. Also I will not be willing to debate this at Youtube simply because its a very poor means to debate. Oh and for Mr. St. Mark. Your files at photobucket do not constitute apollo image numbers. Again common practice is to supply the correct Apollo image numbers with the images youuse to make a claim. Please supply these numbers. Oh, I see from your files WHY you can't supply the frame number for the A17 shot...its because it does not exist. Why? because you shot the image with a Fuji point and shoot from a computer or tv screen...correct? Which would account for the garbage quality ot the image... St. Mark can make the call. I'm available. These are blatant stalling tactics because you have no real rebuttal to the Apollo 14 and 17 spotlight reflections ... Mike is not the only one reading this thread ... Would you like all of my friends to join the forum just to play your games ? ... I don't think so . The ID numbers for the photo in question ARE in his account and also very easily found at the Apollo Image Gallery ... I don't have the time now but I will get them for you ... I highly doubt the A17 photo was photographed from a TV screen .. I have the same exact photo in my own files , which were sent to me a few years ago by an Apollo defender ... Plus several others from that A17 series , all including their ID numbers ... So before you make such ridiculous claims , make sure you have your facts straight . .. I will post the rest of that series here , including the ID numbers as well ... I will also see if Mike feels like joining this forum ... It would be very interesting to see him take you on . BTW, didn't you have some VISOR SMUDGES photos to post here ? .. I can't wait to see those little gems ! Edited October 4, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 (edited) Here's his latest e-mail to me ... Not quite the one you're looking for , but it will have to do until he reads your latest attack .and I quote ... "The convex reflective surface of the astronauts visors will always reflect, only slightly distorted, the shape of the light source being shone onto it. Look at the ceiling strip lights reflected in Neil & Buzz's visors during indoors training at Houston. Ok they're a bit bent but still retain their fundamental source shape in the reflection. My understanding is that you would never get a photo of circular light ( the sun included) reflecting back off a visor, coming out as a hard-edged geometric shape. For me, that pentagon or square HAS to be the shape of the source light. And barn door lights fit well into that bracket. The metal leafs would be especially useful in stopping light from the side casting inconvenient shadows. Also the sun always reflects clear regular radial light spokes in every visor reflection of every astronaut facing the sun in every photo I've seen - except Apollo." BTW ... You will find those photo ID numbers here ... http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/Michaelstmark/ I'll tell you what Dunae, If S.t Mark wants to debate this, here I am. However he will need to join this forum, or Apollohoax or BA, because I'm not going to play email games. He needs to speak directly and not through you. Also I will not be willing to debate this at Youtube simply because its a very poor means to debate. Oh and for Mr. St. Mark. Your files at photobucket do not constitute apollo image numbers. Again common practice is to supply the correct Apollo image numbers with the images youuse to make a claim. Please supply these numbers. Oh, I see from your files WHY you can't supply the frame number for the A17 shot...its because it does not exist. Why? because you shot the image with a Fuji point and shoot from a computer or tv screen...correct? Which would account for the garbage quality ot the image... St. Mark can make the call. I'm available. These are blatant stalling tactics because you have no real rebuttal to the Apollo 14 and 17 spotlight reflections ... Mike is not the only one reading this thread ... Would you like all of my friends to join the forum just to play your games ? ... I don't think so . The ID numbers for the photo in question ARE in his account and also very easily found at the Apollo Image Gallery ... I don't have the time now but I will get them for you ... The A17 shot was NOT photographed from a TV screen .. How absurd ! ... I have the same exact photo in my own files , which were sent to me a few years ago by an Apollo defender ... Plus several others from that A17 series , all including their ID numbers ... So before you make such ridiculous claims , make sure you have you facts straight . .. I will post the rest of that series , including the ID numbers as well ... I will also see if Mike feels like joining this forum ... It would be very interesting to see him take you on . BTW, didn't you have some VISOR SMUDGES photos to post here ? .. I can't wait to see those little gems ! Its direct or nothing I'm afraid. I I had no rebuttal WHY would I ask to debate direct. This is St. Marks argument and if he wants to make it in person I would love that. Your "readers can still follow the discussion with ease. So here I am. What St. Mark got to lose? And NO the image nuber for tis image is NOT at photobucket. This is a perfect example of WHY having a go between is a really poor way to deal with this. Here is the link to his image at his photobucket page. Please point out the Apollo image number for me. http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/Mi...urrent=A8av.jpg Here is the exif data for that image: Notice WHAT camera it was taken with.... Sure looks like a frame grab to me, but only with a camera, not software. Added on edit: I just went and found the file, and I was wrong, it is not taken from an Apollo video source. The ORIGINAL is a Hasselblad image. The source of the file St. Mark posted is still in question. File size: 144083 bytes File date: 2007:09:03 06:55:13 Camera make: FUJIFILM Camera model: FinePix S304 Date/Time: 2002:01:01 00:00:22 Resolution: 800 x 797 Flash used: No Focal length: 9.0mm (35mm equivalent: 157mm) CCD width: 2.06mm Exposure time: 0.040 s (1/25) Aperture: f/2.8 ISO equiv.: 100 Whitebalance: Manual Light Source: Shade Metering Mode: matrix Exposure: program (auto Edited October 4, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 (edited) Here's his latest e-mail to me ... Not quite the one you're looking for , but it will have to do until he reads your latest attack .and I quote ... "The convex reflective surface of the astronauts visors will always reflect, only slightly distorted, the shape of the light source being shone onto it. Look at the ceiling strip lights reflected in Neil & Buzz's visors during indoors training at Houston. Ok they're a bit bent but still retain their fundamental source shape in the reflection. My understanding is that you would never get a photo of circular light ( the sun included) reflecting back off a visor, coming out as a hard-edged geometric shape. For me, that pentagon or square HAS to be the shape of the source light. And barn door lights fit well into that bracket. The metal leafs would be especially useful in stopping light from the side casting inconvenient shadows. Also the sun always reflects clear regular radial light spokes in every visor reflection of every astronaut facing the sun in every photo I've seen - except Apollo." BTW ... You will find those photo ID numbers here ... http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/Michaelstmark/ I'll tell you what Dunae, If S.t Mark wants to debate this, here I am. However he will need to join this forum, or Apollohoax or BA, because I'm not going to play email games. He needs to speak directly and not through you. Also I will not be willing to debate this at Youtube simply because its a very poor means to debate. Oh and for Mr. St. Mark. Your files at photobucket do not constitute apollo image numbers. Again common practice is to supply the correct Apollo image numbers with the images youuse to make a claim. Please supply these numbers. Oh, I see from your files WHY you can't supply the frame number for the A17 shot...its because it does not exist. Why? because you shot the image with a Fuji point and shoot from a computer or tv screen...correct? Which would account for the garbage quality ot the image... St. Mark can make the call. I'm available. These are blatant stalling tactics because you have no real rebuttal to the Apollo 14 and 17 spotlight reflections ... Mike is not the only one reading this thread ... Would you like all of my friends to join the forum just to play your games ? ... I don't think so . The ID numbers for the photo in question ARE in his account and also very easily found at the Apollo Image Gallery ... I don't have the time now but I will get them for you ... I highly doubt the A17 photo was photographed from a TV screen .. I have the same exact photo in my own files , which were sent to me a few years ago by an Apollo defender ... Plus several others from that A17 series , all including their ID numbers ... So before you make such ridiculous claims , make sure you have your facts straight . .. I will post the rest of that series here , including the ID numbers as well ... I will also see if Mike feels like joining this forum ... It would be very interesting to see him take you on . BTW, didn't you have some VISOR SMUDGES photos to post here ? .. I can't wait to see those little gems ! Just a little taste of whats to come, St. Mark is in deep. Note that the "square highlight" is not square, in fact is the round sun and the specular highlights from some nice scratches. And notice that the photograph is front focused so the helmet is out of focus, are the highlights bluring them. Bye Bye square barndoors. St. Mark MIGHT have a leg left IF he can find some five bladed barndoors. Now I heve been creating complex photo lighting sets for 3 decades and I've yet to see a pentagonal barndoor. Now there MAY be one, but I'm gonna need to see it. :0 This should be fun. Can't wait for him to join! Oh and if you have the entire series you already know that none of he rest show any "square highlights", just a nice round sun.l And I found the smudge, just look at how it has shape, and detail, just like that "spotlight smudge"...enjoy! Edited October 5, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 5, 2007 Author Share Posted October 5, 2007 (edited) What smudge ? ... and what does that motocycle visor have to do with this disscusion ? This is not Mike's debate , it's mine ... I only used the Apollo photograhs in his photobucket account because I realized that they were finally the definative proof that the Apollo photographs were taken using spotlights , not the Sun . You are now focusing on the A17 photo , when the real problem for you is that A14 visor reflection photo . How about you stop playing games with motorcycle helmets and Mike's e-mail messages and focus on that very damaging Apollo 14 photo instead ? Edited October 5, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 (edited) What smudge ? ... and what does that motocycle visor have to do with this disscusion ? This is not Mike's debate , it's mine ... I only used the Apollo photograhs in his photobucket account because I realized that they were finally the definative proof that the Apollo photographs were taken using spotlights , not the Sun . You are now focusing on the A17 photo , when the real problem for you is that A14 visor reflection photo . How about you stop playing games with motorcycle helmets and Mike's e-mail messages and focus on that very damaging Apollo 14 photo instead ? Geez Duane, is your memory failing you? From just a few posts ago in this very thread, a Duane quote: "BTW, didn't you have some VISOR SMUDGES photos to post here ? .. I can't wait to see those little gems !" Posted as you requested. Im sure you can find the smudge it you look. You posted the A17 image and claimed the highlight was square, caused by barndoors. Two things are clear, the highlight is NOT square and it is not the work of barndoors. Now when St. Mark can offer up some real proof that that there even IS such a thing as a pentagonal barndoor, then maybe he might have an argument. As it stands he has nothing but mindless speculation with no foundation in any sort of fact whatsoever. Right now he is simply blowing smoke. As for my continuing work on the A14 image, that will happen when St.james shows himself here or at another venue. I'm not doing any more of your email games with him. Either he has the courage to debate on his own or he does not. It's his choice. I'll be here as will his claim. Edited October 5, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 5, 2007 Author Share Posted October 5, 2007 (edited) I thoght I made it very clear that this discussion has nothing to do with Mike or his e-mails to me ... He has told me on several occasions that he didn't have the time or the interest in debating any member of this forum . So instead of using him as distraction tactics, discuss this with me ... I'm the one who posted the faked Apollo photographs here and I'm the one who has made the claim that the light source in the Apollo 14 visor has a pentagonal shape which could NOT have possibly been made by any reflection of the Sun . So forget about the A17 photos for now ... Forget about wanting to attack Mike ... and show me what evidence you have which will prove your case , because that photo you posted here of the motorcycle visor "smudge" has proven NOTHING ! I asked you to post your "smudge" because I thought it might be valid evidence instead of more stalling and distration tactics on your part . Edited October 6, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 6, 2007 Author Share Posted October 6, 2007 (edited) Just a little taste of whats to come, St. Mark is in deep. Note that the "square highlight" is not square, in fact is the round sun and the specular highlights from some nice scratches. And notice that the photograph is front focused so the helmet is out of focus, are the highlights bluring them. Bye Bye square barndoors. St. Mark MIGHT have a leg left IF he can find some five bladed barndoors. Now I heve been creating complex photo lighting sets for 3 decades and I've yet to see a pentagonal barndoor. Now there MAY be one, but I'm gonna need to see it. :0 This should be fun. Can't wait for him to join! Oh and if you have the entire series you already know that none of he rest show any "square highlights", just a nice round sun. Edited October 6, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 I thoght I made it very clear that this discussion has nothing to do with Mike or his e-mails to me ... He has told me on several occasions that he didn't have the time or the interest in debating any member of this forum . OK, I've just re-read the entire post. Your original post contained work that was entirely St.Marks, right down to the comments on the photos. In other words you simply cribed his agruement, with his permission. Your posts in this thread have EVERYTHING to do with St. Mark. He is in fact arguing his position BY PROXY. To say this has nothing to do with St. Mark and his emails simply holds no water. You are the one posting his email rebuttals. I'm not going to play that game. If Mr. St.Mark wishes to argue his points directly I would welcome that with open arms. In fact I again INVITE him or join us here. I find it highly amusing that you say he "didn't have the time or interest in debating any member of this forum" when his watching this thread...how did you put it...."keeping a very close watch on this topic" and his email's prove the exact opposite. St. Mark has found the time and interest to debate members of this forum. He is just doing it by proxy. If this debate with St, Mark is to continue it will continue with his presence or not at all. So instead of using him as distraction tactics, discuss this with me ... I'm the one who posted the faked Apollo photographs here and I'm the one who has made the claim that the light source in the Apollo 14 visor has a pentagonal shape which could NOT have possibly been made by any reflection of the Sun . St. Mark is not a distraction. He is a central player in your posts. No you have simply parroted St Marks work. I'm not the the one who started this thread with the intention of being a proxy for a non-member. It was St. Mark who claimed the A14 image had an "octagonal" highlight. I corrected that and introduced the term pentagonal. You have made NO claims in this matter at all. Remember, your origianl post of these claims were the work of someone else. Now back to the A14 photo. St. Marks claim is that the visor reflection is caused by a light beam shaped with a barndoor. He claimed wrongly that the shape is octagonal. Since St.Mark has made this claim he is the one who needs to support his claim. To support this claim that a light beam shaped by a barndoors created this highlight he needs to establish that a studio light with a similar barn door exists. After showing that it exists he now needs to show with empirical evidence that in fact this light beam shaped by a barndoor will actually produce the result he claims. Then and only then will he have a claim worthy of discussion. I'll be here. St. Mark can bring himself and his evidence any time he wishes and I'll be happy to discuss it then. So forget about the A17 photos for now ... Forget about wanting to attack Mike ... and show me what evidence you have which will prove your case , because that photo you posted here of the motorcycle visor "smudge" has proven NOTHING ! Why forget abut the A17 image? Is it because the crop I have posted from the high res scan shows that St. Mark. was wrong about the highlight being square? As for the A14 image see above, I wait St.Marks's evidence that back up the A14 claim...then we can talk. I asked you to post your "smudge" because I thought it might be valid evidence instead of more stalling and distration tactics on your part . It is valid evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Just a little taste of whats to come, St. Mark is in deep. Note that the "square highlight" is not square, in fact is the round sun and the specular highlights from some nice scratches. And notice that the photograph is front focused so the helmet is out of focus, are the highlights bluring them. Bye Bye square barndoors. St. Mark MIGHT have a leg left IF he can find some five bladed barndoors. Now I heve been creating complex photo lighting sets for 3 decades and I've yet to see a pentagonal barndoor. Now there MAY be one, but I'm gonna need to see it. :0 This should be fun. Can't wait for him to join! Oh and if you have the entire series you already know that none of he rest show any "square highlights", just a nice round sun. Please inform Mr. White that he is mis-using photoshop again. Why not have him perform a simple levels reduction on the HIGH-RES scan, instead of using his worthless 'color filtering" method usind that screen capture from a point and shoot digital camera. I suggest a levels staring point of 8,30,255. As for the image you have posted for White, garbage in, garbage out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 6, 2007 Author Share Posted October 6, 2007 (edited) And one last time .... Mike is NOT interested in joining this forum and arguing with you ... He only allowed me to use his photos to prove that the A14 photo was NOT a Sun reflection in the visor .... So stop stalling a show me the proof that the the pentagonal shape in the visor reflection is the Sun ! You won't because you can't , and " SMUDGES ON THE VISOR " and "SCRATCHES ON THE VISOR " are not gonna cut it for this one . Jack has not mis-used photoshop in any respect ... He has only enhanced the fact that the A17 visor light source reflection is NOT ROUND , as you previously claimed it was . Edited October 6, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 6, 2007 Author Share Posted October 6, 2007 Since you insist on debating Mike on this , here's his latest e-mail to me including some links to his photobucket account , to get the debate started . "Duane, Only just had time to look in at the EF. He's suffering from several delusions. First off, I have applied to join the forum several times, but new members not being accepted message comes up, on my board at least. Otherwise I'd be happy to debate with him there. Second, I made no absolute claim on my PB that definitely barn door lighting was used. It may still well may have been deployed, but flash photography is another possibility. Lastly, I've countered some of his arguments by opening a new sequence dedicated to him on my PB. The "square sun" image is a legitimate crop from the AS17 134 20472-79 Hasselblad series. I have altered nothing. cheers Mike" http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/Mi...nt=DSCF0004.jpg http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/Mi...nt=DSCF0109.jpg http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/Mi...nt=DSCF0178.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 "Duane,Only just had time to look in at the EF. He's suffering from several delusions. First off, I have applied to join the forum several times, but new members not being accepted message comes up, on my board at least. Otherwise I'd be happy to debate with him there. Duane, You could ask John to have a look at Mike's application. I'm reasonably sure he'd process this as a 'one-off'. Just ask him. 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