Duane Daman Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 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. Okay , here's the thread link postbaguk Dave . http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9235 Here's the original nasa whistleblower phony photo with it's backwards , upright shadow and it's ridiculous chitty chitty bang bang tire tracks going right slap dab through the middle of that stupid looking staged crater ... And here is your "stretched and skewed " version of the photo with your ridiculously lame attempt to have the shadow conform to the position of astro-actor Dave Scott ... In your pathetic effort to prove me wrong , you were dishonest .... Why would you or anyone else feel the need to ALTER THE SHADOW to conform to the object making the shadow , if something wasn't very wrong with this picture in the first place ? This Apollo 15 Dave Scott photo has to be one of the best examples of whistleblowers exposing the faked Apollo photographs , I have ever seen .... I have shared this photo with several other conspiracy researchers now and they couldn't believe what you did to bend the shadow ! .... In fact , what you did made it even more obvious that the astro-actors shadow is backwards !! And you people have the audacity to call Jack's work dishonest ?? ... UNBELIEVABLE ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Duane, take the original image, and scale it vertically 400%. You will get the same results, there is no skew and no alteration other than a vertical scaling to make the shadow easier to see. This was explained to you very clearly in the other thread and you can replicate the experiment yourself, please try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Okay , here's the thread link postbaguk Dave .http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9235 Here's the original nasa whistleblower phony photo with it's backwards , upright shadow and it's ridiculous chitty chitty bang bang tire tracks going right slap dab through the middle of that stupid looking staged crater ... And here is your "stretched and skewed " version of the photo with your ridiculously lame attempt to have the shadow conform to the position of astro-actor Dave Scott ... In your pathetic effort to prove me wrong , you were dishonest .... Why would you or anyone else feel the need to ALTER THE SHADOW to conform to the object making the shadow , if something wasn't very wrong with this picture in the first place ? This Apollo 15 Dave Scott photo has to be one of the best examples of whistleblowers exposing the faked Apollo photographs , I have ever seen .... I have shared this photo with several other conspiracy researchers now and they couldn't believe what you did to bend the shadow ! .... In fact , what you did made it even more obvious that the astro-actors shadow is backwards !! And you people have the audacity to call Jack's work dishonest ?? ... UNBELIEVABLE ! Well, if you want to go over it all again... I did not alter the shadow to conform to the object. As has been explained to you umpteen times, the relevant crop was vertically stretched. Why did I do this? Well, in the original photo, the shadow is being cast in such a way to make it appear slightly flattened. This makes it more difficult to see which parts of the shadow conform to which part of the astronaut. Expanding the y-axis as I've done here simply exaggerates any features already present in the original. I have NOT "bent" the shadow in any way as you have accused me, nor have I done anything to the image other than vertically stretch the relevant crop, nor have I been dishonest as you have blatantly accused me. It's now a much more simple task to match shadow features in the stretched crop to the astronaut. This was done in the previous thread, clearly showing that the shadow has no inconsistencies with the object casting it, i.e. the astronaut. The shadow of the helmet is where you'd expect it, as is the PLSS. Your problem seems to be interpreting the PLSS to be the helmet, and vice versa. Kevin West has it labelled in this photo:- A. Rock B. Legs C. Arms D. Head E. Backpack You were claiming that D and E should be reversed. By strecthing the crop, I've shown that this simply isn't the case. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.greer70...llo15/11436.jpg Can you demonstrate why it is impossible for the shadows to be in the configuration shown, ie ABCDE matching up as stated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 (edited) The bottom line is this ... If the shadow matched the position of the astronot in this silly faked photo , then you would not have had to stretch and skew it to match it up . You can tap dance really well Dave ... In fact , you're one of the fastest I've ever encountered , when it comes to trying to explain away the numerous anomalies in the official Apollo photographic record . Stick around YouTube postbaguk Dave ... You might just learn something about the phony Apollo photography ... Like the truth ... If you can even manage to remember what that is. Edited April 13, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 The bottom line is this ... If the shadow matched the position of the astronot in this silly faked photo , then you would not have had to stretch and skew it to match it up . The bottom line is this... He didn't skew it at all, and only stretched it to make it easier to see, not to 'match it up'. It matches up just fine in the original, which you can't see for some reason, so he gave you a better view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 The bottom line is this ... If the shadow matched the position of the astronot in this silly faked photo , then you would not have had to stretch and skew it to match it up . The bottom line is this... He didn't skew it at all, and only stretched it to make it easier to see, not to 'match it up'. It matches up just fine in the original, which you can't see for some reason, so he gave you a better view. Yep, agreed. He made clear what he had done; no attempt to hide anything. You do yourself no credit by harping on this, Duane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 The bottom line is this ... If the shadow matched the position of the astronot in this silly faked photo , then you would not have had to stretch and skew it to match it up . The reason I stretched this crop has been pointed out to you ad infinitum. You can tap dance really well Dave ... In fact , you're one of the fastest I've ever encountered , when it comes to trying to explain away the numerous anomalies in the official Apollo photographic record .Stick around YouTube postbaguk Dave ... You might just learn something about the phony Apollo photography ... Like the truth ... If you can even manage to remember what that is. <Sigh> I'd love to learn more about Lunar photography. I embrace the truth. I crave it. I love it. Good luck trying to prove your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 The real reason you stretched that photo to alter the shape of the shadow , has nothing to do with your repetitive lame explaination, which makes no sense whatsoever ... Trying to prove my position on this forum has nothing to do with luck , but everything to do with being out numbered by the Apollo police . This Apollo 15 Scott shadow photo is the biggest scam you have run so far Dave ... and because of the games you played with this one , you are now the laughing stock of YouTube , where the CT's outnumber the bullies ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 The real reason you stretched that photo to alter the shape of the shadow , has nothing to do with your repetitive lame explaination, which makes no sense whatsoever ... Trying to prove my position on this forum has nothing to do with luck , but everything to do with being out numbered by the Apollo police . This Apollo 15 Scott shadow photo is the biggest scam you have run so far Dave ... and because of the games you played with this one , you are now the laughing stock of YouTube , where the CT's outnumber the bullies ! Why am I reminded of a scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail? (Come back here. I'll bite your legs orf!) Duane - guess what? It really doesn't matter. If you want to think the A15 photo was back to front, then go ahead. If you want to believe Apollo was faked, be happy in your ignorance. I shalln't be able to sleep at night knowing the self-appointed judge, jury and executioner of the internet (aka Duane Daman) had deemed me the "laughing stock of Youtube". The "laughing stock of Youtube"? Duane, I love you. You're priceless. Please continue posting. (Will the irony will be wasted...?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 You can pretend that you're amused all you want to Dave , but your PM to me tells quite a different story . You pulled a stunt on YouTube about those alleged e-mails , that you didn't think through and you didn't think I would call your bluff on ... Therfore , you got caught with your pants down , so to speak ... and you are the laughing stock of YouTube .. and if you don't believe me I will post the video here which proves that you and your A15 shadow are a sham . I don't THINK the A15 Scott photo shadow is backwards , I KNOW it's backwards ... I don't THINK the moon buggy tire tracks went slap dab through the middle of that silly looking crater ,which would have flipped it right over if it really had , I KNOW they did and it's called WHISTLEBLOWING .... I don't THINK the Apollo photos are crude studio fakes , I KNOW they are .. Funny you should speak of irony and ignorance , as I have no doubt you are very familiar with both . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 (edited) The real reason you stretched that photo to alter the shape of the shadow , has nothing to do with your repetitive lame explaination, which makes no sense whatsoever ... Trying to prove my position on this forum has nothing to do with luck , but everything to do with being out numbered by the Apollo police . This Apollo 15 Scott shadow photo is the biggest scam you have run so far Dave ... and because of the games you played with this one , you are now the laughing stock of YouTube , where the CT's outnumber the bullies ! No Duane the reason Dave and others have posted on WHY he stretched the shadow are spot on. Of course you can test it yourself and see it is emperical evidence. However that would take an understanding of how light and show react and how a lens records such based on the positon of the camera and the position of the subject. I believe you have stated you have no such knowlege. Given that how can you claim you are correct? You fail at proving your position because you lack the knowlege to understand the subject matter. Edited April 19, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 You can pretend that you're amused all you want to Dave , but your PM to me tells quite a different story .You pulled a stunt on YouTube about those alleged e-mails , that you didn't think through and you didn't think I would call your bluff on ... Therfore , you got caught with your pants down , so to speak ... and you are the laughing stock of YouTube .. and if you don't believe me I will post the video here which proves that you and your A15 shadow are a sham . I don't THINK the A15 Scott photo shadow is backwards , I KNOW it's backwards ... I don't THINK the moon buggy tire tracks went slap dab through the middle of that silly looking crater ,which would have flipped it right over if it really had , I KNOW they did and it's called WHISTLEBLOWING .... I don't THINK the Apollo photos are crude studio fakes , I KNOW they are .. Funny you should speak of irony and ignorance , as I have no doubt you are very familiar with both . Duane This is an open forum, post any videos you like that pertain to the subject matter (within the rules of the forum of course). Accusing me of being a xxxx on that "last bastion of truth" (Youtube comments boards) is one thing, dragging that accusation over here and continuing to do the same on a much more respected forum is another. I've already told you I will not be blackmailed just to satisfy your curiosity. Until such a time as I get permission to make that email public from the person who wrote it (Jenny Heller), it remains private. I tell you what I will do though, just to stop you spreading pernicious false accusations about me throughout the World Wide Web. I am willing to forward the email to one of the moderators on this forum of your choice. If they are willing to confirm that I do indeed have an email from the person in question, stating that she is not a photography expert, but is sure that my beach photo disproves Jarrah White's theory on the Apollo 17 photograph, would you be willing to publicly apologise to me on both this forum, and the Youtube comments board (and any other forum you may have mentioned it on?) Ball is in your court Duane. BACKGROUND FOR MEMBERS AND LURKERS Jarrah White is an Australian student who has posted several videos on Youtube attempting to show that certain aspects of the Apollo missions were faked. His series is called Moonfaker. Much of the first series is devoted to one particular Apollo 17 photograph, AS17-136-20744. In particular, he believes it's impossible for the shadow cast by one of the rocks in the photo to be pointing in the direction it does. I was able to recreate a similar photo which I showed to him. I also emailed the "expert" in his video, Jenny Heller, who had said there must be three separate light sources. Among other things, she confirmed she is not a photography expert (she's a fine arts teacher), but agreed that my photo proved Jarrah wrong about the photo being faked. Duane accused me on the Youtube comments board of lying about this email, (and worse, of actually threatening Jenny into retracting her statement), and then dragged that accusation over to this forum. Hence I've been reluctantly manipulated into a position where I feel I need to defend my character. I could publish the email on my website, but don't want to do that without Jenny's permission (I've emailed her for permission with no response so far). I could forward the email on to Duane, but again am reluctant to do so for various reasons (his language and accusations on Youtube have been beyond the pale, and noone likes being blackmailed). Hence, if one of the moderators on this board would be willing to act as mediator, I'll forward the email on to them so that they can confirm that (a) it is from Jenny Heller, ( there is no threatening language from myself, either direct or implied, © she states that she is NOT a photography expert, (d), she states that she is sure the beach photo I forwarded to her disproves Jarrah's theory, and (e) there is nothing else in the email that contradicts anything I've said. Hopefully Duane will be able to get a moderator of his choice to agree to mediating on this matter, preferably someone who hasn't participated in the Apollo discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 (edited) You are unbelievable ... On every forum you have followed me to , you always try to make me look like the bad guy . You made claims on the YouTube comment boards that you had contacted Jarrah's source and she refutted her own claim , which was only agreeing with him in his MoonFaker video that the 90 degree shadow angle on one Apollo 11 photo was anomalous ... Then you proceeded to make the claim that she was not qualified to do any photo analysis and that she admitted as much to you ... Of course your entire sole reason for allegedly contacting her and making these statements on YouTube was to attempt to discredit Jarrah's work ... All I asked was that instead of forwarding this alleged e-mail to another pro Apollo video maker on that site to gloat over getting one up on Jarrah , that you forward these alleged e-mails to him and me , so we could see for ourselves if Jenny had refuted her original claim without any pressure from you ... Now you are still refusing to send these alleged e-mails to Jarrrah and me , but would like me to assign a moderator here to accept them ?!?! ... You have got to be joking !! ... There isn't a moderator on this forum who would take my side in this because there isn't one moderator here who is even open to the possibility that the official Apollo record is fraudulent ... So no , I don't accept your offer for the simple reason that I don't trust you or your motives . I never asked you to post these alleged e-mails publically ... I asked you to send them to Jarrah's and my PM inbox , for the sole purpose to see if your claims about her refuting her own analysis was true , and to make sure that it wasn't done out of fear of who might be contacting her . There was no reason for you to bring any of this here, via a PM to me or posts on this forum , about what takes place on YouTube ... This is a game you have played before with me ... and the last two times you played it, the WOS was hacked and permanately crashed and I was banned from the Unexplained Mysteries forum . I am tired of your games ... I am tired of your dishonest tactics ... and I am tired of you trying to make me the bad guy , when it's you who fits that role ... If your friends are too blind to see what you are all about, then fine ... but you have fooled no one on YouTube with your game playing nonsense and the altering of the A15 Dave Scott shadow ... I don't give a hoot what kind of explaination you or Lamson or West or any of the other defenders of Apollo comes up with to try to explain away why you stretched and skewed that photo to have the shadow match the astronot ... because in doing so , you not only made it more obvious that the shadow was placed in that photograph backwards and in the wrong upright position , but also became a joke among the conspiracy researchers on YouTube ... So no , I don't want you to send those alleged e-mails to a nasa defending moderator on this forum , I want you to send them to Jarrah and me ... and the only reason at this point that you still refuse to send them to us , only proves one thing ... Either there are no e-mails or they don't make the claims you say they do . If you forward the e-mails to Jarrah and me and they are everything you claim they are , then I will make a public apology to you on YouTube .. Balls in your court Dave . Edited April 19, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 By the way , your photograph is a phony looking as the Apollo one ... Did you really fool him with this photoshopped shadow photo of yours ? ... Or is this just part of your game ? "I was able to recreate a similar photo which I showed to him." ... I just bet you "recreated" it . 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