Anomalous object in A17 moonscape

[Len Colby]

Although you can still claim that the "anomalous object" isn't a partial bootprint you claim that there are no bootprints anywhere in the photo has been shown to be completely false. "Moving the goal posts" and claiming the prints are in the wrong location or pointing the wrong way does help your credibility since that wasn't what you claimed. The honorable thing to do is to admit your error and apologize to the people you insulted. Your claim that you never initiate exchanges of insults has also been shown to be false.

Whatever caused it the "object" appears not really to be an object but rather an impression in the soil. Even if you don't accept this you have yet to make any kind of suggestion as to what the "object" might be. You seem to be insinuating that the presence of this "object" indicates that the photo wasn't taken on the moon but rather in a studio set on earth. Unless you come up with some sort of reasonable theory as to what the "object" was and show that it should not have been on that spot on the surface of the moon your baseless speculation in no way serves as evidence in support of your theory that the moon photos were faked.

[Duane Daman]

Well, I see that some things just never change around here .

Jack ... I can't believe that you are still wasting your valuable time posting on a forum where those who defend Apollo play such ridiculous games .

You remember that old expression don't you ? .... "Never argue with an idiot . They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience ."

[Len Colby]

Well, I see that some things just never change around here .

Jack ... I can't believe that you are still wasting your valuable time posting on a forum where those who defend Apollo play such ridiculous games .

You remember that old expression don't you ? .... "Never argue with an idiot . They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience ."

You're right some things never change Jack and you continue to resort to unproked insults when the facts aren't in your favor.

[Kevin M. West]

It's from a boot.

You can't tell what kind of dust was kicked up around that particular rectangle but the indentations from the other boot print clearly match the single one.

I'd like to hear Jack's response to this. Do you admit you were wrong about any point raised in this thread, Jack?

[Duane Daman]

Kevin ... It looks as though Jack may have had enough of the games being played on this thread , by you and your friends .... If he doesn't believe that he's wrong , then why should he do something which NONE of you who defend Apollo are ever capable of doing ? .... I have caught several of you being dishonest and incorrect about the Apollo photographic evidence , but instead of any of you admitting to it , you just continue to play the same dishonset games .... and if you don't know what I'm referring to , then I will post some pictures here which were altered by your friend postbaguk Dave , which will prove my point .

[Kevin M. West]

Games? Nobody here is playing games, Duane, and Jack doesn't need you to defend him.

[Dave Greer]

Kevin ... It looks as though Jack may have had enough of the games being played on this thread , by you and your friends .... If he doesn't believe that he's wrong , then why should he do something which NONE of you who defend Apollo are ever capable of doing ? .... I have caught several of you being dishonest and incorrect about the Apollo photographic evidence , but instead of any of you admitting to it , you just continue to play the same dishonset games .... and if you don't know what I'm referring to , then I will post some pictures here which were altered by your friend postbaguk Dave , which will prove my point .

Duane, if someone disagrees with you and provides evidence so support their position, that is not called "mind games", nor is it a failure to admit when wrong about something. It's called a difference of opinion. Jack has been asked to defend or retract his claims that certain Apollo photos show anomalies which suggest they were faked. It's unfortunate that he chooses not to do neither, and this no doubt leads members and caual observers of the relevant threads to come to their own conclusions why.

Feel free to post any Apollo pictures here that I've altered, and why you think it is dishonest. Perhaps you could also provide a link to the relevant thread the picture was in, so it can be viewed in context? I invariably state what kind of photoshop-style manipulation I do to any images. IIRC I even giving you quite detailed instructions on how to stretch a particular image so you could prove for yourself that I hadn't "bent" it as you kept insisting.

Do you not find it ironic that you are trying to "out" me as someone playing dishonest games simply because I use photoshop as a tool for investigating images, when the OP of this thread, JW, in his initial post, provided an image which he admitted he had manipulated? Was JW playing dishonest games too? Personally I don't think he was, since he stated what he had done to the image (although I think he should have provided the mission roll and frame number at the same time). The main issue I have with JW on this and other threads is that he doesn't defend or retract his claims about them.

[Kevin M. West]

My main problem with Jack is that even though he's been very thoroughly proven wrong in some cases, such as the 'standing next to your shadow' pictures, he hasn't taken down the studies in question from aulis.com. He calls us disinformationists while he leaves things that he knows are false online to mislead others.

[Dave Greer]

There is the possibility that JW still thinks he's right, in which case he should be capable of defending of his studies. IMO many of them have been quite comprehensively dismantled. Sadly his silence on the issue is doing his case no favours whatsoever.

There is another thread for debate on whether members should be allowed to call others "disinformation agents", which JW himself has participated in. Given his forthright views on the subject, I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and label most of his studies on Aulis as "misinformation" rather than "disinformation". Some of them come extremely close to the line though. His "Use of tripod on the moon" study being one in particular, where cropping an image has actually produced an "perceived" anomaly that isn't present when looking at both images uncropped. http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_3.html.

[Craig Lamson]

There is the possibility that JW still thinks he's right, in which case he should be capable of defending of his studies. IMO many of them have been quite comprehensively dismantled. Sadly his silence on the issue is doing his case no favours whatsoever.

There is another thread for debate on whether members should be allowed to call others "disinformation agents", which JW himself has participated in. Given his forthright views on the subject, I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and label most of his studies on Aulis as "misinformation" rather than "disinformation". Some of them come extremely close to the line though. His "Use of tripod on the moon" study being one in particular, where cropping an image has actually produced an "perceived" anomaly that isn't present when looking at both images uncropped. http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_3.html.

There are JW "studies" that have been shown wrong with uninpeachable emperical evidence. Jack has seen the evidence and it is IMPOSSIBLE for him to refute it. This goes way beyond "belief". I'll grant Jack no such quarter as you are willing to do. His actions (and lack therof) speaks VOLUMES.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

He calls us disinformationists while he leaves things that he knows are false online to mislead others.

Kevin,

Please refrain from saying a member knowingly posts inaccurate information.

I agree insofar as Jack has posted on the Aulis website claims which - IMO - are totally wrong. We have to consider, however, that Jack totally believes in his claims and does NOT consider them to be inaccurate in any way. He may consider his claims so strong that they need no reply to rebuttals.

My approach would be the following:

- Demonstrate where you believe Jack has erred, giving as much supporting evidence as possible;

- Give Jack the chance to rebut your claims of inaccuracies; and

- Allow members (and lurkers) to decide for themselves whose claim is stronger.

I would encourage "lurkers" (whether they be board members or simply people who have happened across this forum) to post their opinions, whether they be pro-Apollo or con-Apollo, on the board. If you are not a board member, I would encourage you to join and post your opinions.

Someone apart from we regular "Apollogists" may discover a decisive facet which further supports our views; likewise, someone else may discover something that has not yet been considered which placed doubt on the veracity of rebuttals.

Let's convince others of the accuracy of our relative claims, and Jack's claim he is willing to correct himself if proven wrong.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Craig Lamson]

He calls us disinformationists while he leaves things that he knows are false online to mislead others.

We have to consider, however, that Jack totally believes in his claims and does NOT consider them to be inaccurate in any way. He may consider his claims so strong that they need no reply to rebuttals.

And herein lies the problem. We are talking about a process (photography) that is a hard science. This is not conjecture about what someone might or might not have said or done. It is the questioning of a process that can be tested emperically. Someones "beliefs" simply do not factor into most of the discussions. Either something is right or it is wrong. There is NO middle ground.

Jacks work for the most part relies on his WORD that things work a certain way. To back up his WORD he claims expert status as a profesional photographer. What Jack FAILS to offer is any emperical evidence that his WORD has any validity. What has been shown over and over is that his WORD as a professional photographer is FAULTY.

So how can Jack beliefs in his claims mean anything at this point? He has had ample opportunity to test his claims and to learn how the process of photography works. His works no longer fits what he calls "misinformation" He has been shown to be an unreliable "expert" witness and as such his WORDS about how the process of photography works can and should be dismissed. At this point he either needs to submit EMPERICAL evidence to support his claims, or do as he has CLAIMED he is willing to do and admit his error.

[Kevin M. West]

Kevin,

Please refrain from saying a member knowingly posts inaccurate information.

Please note that I only do it in response to him saying the same about me (again).

I agree insofar as Jack has posted on the Aulis website claims which - IMO - are totally wrong. We have to consider, however, that Jack totally believes in his claims and does NOT consider them to be inaccurate in any way. He may consider his claims so strong that they need no reply to rebuttals.

My approach would be the following:

- Demonstrate where you believe Jack has erred, giving as much supporting evidence as possible;

- Give Jack the chance to rebut your claims of inaccuracies; and

And there is the problem. Jack will gladly 'defend' his studies until he is conclusively shown to be wrong, at which point he will stop responding and let the thread drift away. This thread and the other I bumped up are perfect examples. Especially the shadow thread, it was explained in great detail not only why he was wrong, but also how anyone with a camera can test it. He's a photographer, it would take him a few seconds to test and confirm his own study, and he has read all of this, yet he doesn't comment further and the 'study' is still on aulis.

He either knows he's wrong, and is therefore dishonest, or he doesn't understand the basics of photography and is unwilling to take a few seconds to test the claim for some reason.

- Allow members (and lurkers) to decide for themselves whose claim is stronger.

I would encourage "lurkers" (whether they be board members or simply people who have happened across this forum) to post their opinions, whether they be pro-Apollo or con-Apollo, on the board. If you are not a board member, I would encourage you to join and post your opinions.

Someone apart from we regular "Apollogists" may discover a decisive facet which further supports our views; likewise, someone else may discover something that has not yet been considered which placed doubt on the veracity of rebuttals.

Let's convince others of the accuracy of our relative claims, and Jack's claim he is willing to correct himself if proven wrong.

Well, in my opinion, he's been given ample time to correct himself and yet his false claims are still up there misleading people on aulis where we can't argue our side. And I'm not talking about things that are opinion, or could change with more evidence. I'm talking about things that can and have been proven, like this thread.

[Duane Daman]

Games? Nobody here is playing games, Duane, and Jack doesn't need you to defend him.

Nobody is playing games ? .. You have got to be kidding ! .. That's all you and your Apollo apologist friends know how to do on these forums .

Jack already posted his reply ... Whether you accept it or agree with it or not , is your problem ... Here it is again , in case you didn't bother to read it the first time.

"My study refers, of course, to UNCROPPED images. Anyone can CROP an image to

place the shadow of the photographer to one side. If the photographer is standing

erect and the camera is above his feet, then any photographer's SHADOW, by the

LAWS OF PERSPECTIVE, must always POINT TO THE CENTER BOTTOM OF THE

UNCROPPED IMAGE, leading directly to his FEET. If not, the image has been cropped

from a full image in which the shadow points correctly. It is the direction of the

shadow which matters, not the location within the image. A photographer CANNOT

STAND BESIDE HIS SHADOW unless the direction of the shadow leads to his feet.

His feet cannot be anywhere except the bottom center of the image. A very simple

principle to understand."

Jack

And don't tell me who's defense I can or can't come to either ... You don't own this forum ... You brought up this subject again because you can't accept the fact that Jack White has exposed the Apollo photography for what it is .... STUDIO FAKES ! ... So instead of continuing to character assassinate him , why don't you just leave him alone .

[Kevin M. West]

And his claim is wrong, my images are not cropped. Duane, do you own a camera? Go try it for yourself before you accept Jack's word as truth.