Jack White Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 I just sent you a PM asking you to please not alter my posts ... I also asked you since you are on the forum , why you don't allow my other posts to be submitted now on the other Apollo threads ? It looks like there might be a reason you don't want to submit my other posts .... So why are you issuing me a formal warning when I have done nothing wrong ? ... I know for a fact what image I put in my post ... It was the Alan Shepard photo from the Apollo Image Gallery , not the study I put here yesterday for Jack . Once more: 1. I have not altered or edited your posts in any way. 2. I am not unduly holding up your posts; in fact I am attending to them as fast as I can. The only posts I am not touching are posts made by Jack. I have stated I will refrain from moderating his posts (that includes approving them) and I am adhering to that undertaking. 3. I brought to your attention the fact that the image did not match the description. That's all. The security logs will show I did NOT alter the post in any way. I'd suggest you made an error in the original post. Easy to do, and we can all make mistakes. 4. You are being formally warned because of your unfounded public accusations - such as another one in the quoted post ("It looks like there might be a reason you don't want to submit my other posts..."). These accusations are a form of abuse or harassment. If you have claims of such a serious nature, bring them to the attention of John or Andy as soon as possible. DO NOT MAKE PUBLIC ACCUSATIONS OF WRONGDOING AGAINST A FORUM MEMBER. I would ask John or Andy to - once again - publicly confirm that I have not altered Duane's posts / images in any way. Whatinell is going on???? I was replying to this message. I was nearly finished typing a message, and suddenly the forum LOGGED ME OUT, not letting me finish the message. Who or what is doing this? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 (edited) I just sent you a PM asking you to please not alter my posts ... I also asked you since you are on the forum , why you don't allow my other posts to be submitted now on the other Apollo threads ? It looks like there might be a reason you don't want to submit my other posts .... So why are you issuing me a formal warning when I have done nothing wrong ? ... I know for a fact what image I put in my post ... It was the Alan Shepard photo from the Apollo Image Gallery , not the study I put here yesterday for Jack . Once more: 1. I have not altered or edited your posts in any way. 2. I am not unduly holding up your posts; in fact I am attending to them as fast as I can. The only posts I am not touching are posts made by Jack. I have stated I will refrain from moderating his posts (that includes approving them) and I am adhering to that undertaking. 3. I brought to your attention the fact that the image did not match the description. That's all. The security logs will show I did NOT alter the post in any way. I'd suggest you made an error in the original post. Easy to do, and we can all make mistakes. 4. You are being formally warned because of your unfounded public accusations - such as another one in the quoted post ("It looks like there might be a reason you don't want to submit my other posts..."). These accusations are a form of abuse or harassment. If you have claims of such a serious nature, bring them to the attention of John or Andy as soon as possible. DO NOT MAKE PUBLIC ACCUSATIONS OF WRONGDOING AGAINST A FORUM MEMBER. I would ask John or Andy to - once again - publicly confirm that I have not altered Duane's posts / images in any way. I have been keeping score since Burton got me put on "moderation". Today I complained to moderator Antti Hynonen that FIVE or more of my postings have disappeared without any notice or reason. He has not yet replied to my protest. Most of them were very innocuous and non-controversial and most were on the JFK forum. John / Andy, Request you investigate Jack's claim and publicly report your findings. Once more, by the same people, my character is being called into question and I would like full public disclosure of the results. I believe these claims are vexatious in nature. Edited October 21, 2007 by Evan Burton Added line about claims being vexatious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 (edited) Okay , so let me get this straight .... First you claim that the pentagonal shape of the light source reflected in the visor is because the "camera aperture is a pentagonal shape " .No, I did not say that "light source was pentagonal, in fact I showed via photographic evidence that the light source was in fact round...because it is the sun. I also showed that the pentagonal shape in the visor is a diffraction flare (or over saturatated highlight area if you prefer) that EXTENDS beyond the actual reflection of the sun...and that the SHAPE OF THIS FLARE was most likely caused by the 5 bladed aperture of the lens.[/b Then you claim that the pentagonal shape is caused by a "flare" around the sun . See above. If you would perfer we can call this a "diffraction induced highlight artifact" All of this seem beyond your ability to understand. And finally you claim that a defraction off of the aperture blades caused the Sun to be the shape of the Pentagon. No. I said...and showed that the pentagonal shape WAS NOT the shape of the lightsource, which is round and is the sun. The defraction off of the aperture blades caused the pentagonal shaped "diffraction induced highlight artifact" that surrounds the round specular highlight of the sun. Your photoshopped images aren't proof of anything except that you know how to tap dance pretty well . Make of them what you will. You have no problem with a similar process when it suits your needs. The simple levels adjustment shows the actual shape of the lightsource is round. To deny the usefullness of the process would show you to be a bit of a hyprocrite. So my question to you is this ... If the Hassleblad camera aperture can cause the Sun to have a pentagonal shape , then why do no other Apollo light source reflections have this particular shape ? ... Some are more square , some are mostly round ( as most spotlights are ) , yet NONE of them have the concentric spikes surrounding a small round shape , that should be there if they were reflections of the real Sun . The sun DOES NOT HAVE A PENTAGONAL SHAPE! The images show that the reflection of the sun is round. And how do you know that NONE of the other Apollo visor reflection show pentagonal "diffraction induced highlight artifacts"? Have you performed detailed check of every visor image that includes a sun reflection? We have TWO such images in the 14-66 magazine alone. I'll have more detailed information on visor reflection in the entire apollo catalog tomorrow when Ihave the time to pu tinto the process. In any case 14-66-9130 has pertty clean spikes, 9131 and 9132 bot have spikes, just less clean. HOWEVER nto every sunlight reflection WILL HAVE A STARBURST. Many factors iinfluence the formation of starbursts, surface reflectivity and condition (dirty, scratched etc.) focus, f-stop and camera movement, reflectance angle etc. You have claimed that EVERY sun reflection MUST have a starburst, please provide evidence to back up that claim. Here are some other photos which prove that the Apollo 'Sun' reflections were not created by the real Sun , but rather an artificial light source. Duane, this is not your work, it is work of another (in this case St. Mark...again) <<deleted by Moderator>>. It is standard practice to list the source of material that is not yours by posting links and or mentioning the author by name. Bad Boy Duane! Oh and you can pass this along to St. Mark. He has posted TWO OF MY COPYRIGHTED IMAGES on his photobucket page WITHOUT MY PERMISSION NOR VAILD USAGE RIGHTS. He has two days to remove them or I will file a DMCA claim against him and his Photobucket account. By Moderator: Craig, I do not believe that Duane claimed the work as his own. Please not use the word as you did unless you have proof of such. Even then, you should run your intention by a Moderator to ensure you are not stepping over the line. A repeat of such behaviour will lead to your warning level being increased by 10%. Thank you. Edited October 21, 2007 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 (edited) I haven't committed "plagiarism" by pretending that Mike's work is mine .... If I wanted to do that I would have copied his studies by moving them to my own account and then reworded them ... The URL properties link is attached to each one of those images , so it's no secret where they came from ... The same place the first images in this thread came from ... My friend Michael St. Mark . You are always trying to make me look like the bad guy here , when in fact it's you who fits that role . I bet you would love to take down Mike's photobucket account , wouldn't you ? ... but not because of any images of you in it ... He does have a way with words and exposing the faked Apollo photographs , doesn't he ? Your latest tap dance was very impressive ... especially the dance with the BIG RED LETTERS . (Nothing major edited. Point still made. Thanks, Duane for your accomodation.) Edited October 21, 2007 by Kathy Beckett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 (edited) By Moderator: Craig, I do not believe that Duane claimed the work as his own. Please not use the word as you did unless you have proof of such. Even then, you should run your intention by a Moderator to ensure you are not stepping over the line. A repeat of such behaviour will lead to your warning level being increased by 10%. Thank you. <Post Deleted> Craig, we discussed this and I do not accept your views. You were warned about making the accusation. Your warning level has been raised by 10%. Edited October 21, 2007 by Evan Burton Removed post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 (edited) I haven't committed "plagiarism" by pretending that Mike's work is mine .... If I wanted to do that I would have copied his studies by moving them to my own account and then reworded them ... The URL properties link is attached to each one of those images , so it's no secret where they came from ... The same place the first images in this thread came from ... My friend Michael St. Mark .I think you have. If you or the mods disagree too freaking bad. You are always trying to make me look like the bad guy here , when in fact it's you who fits that role . You do that just fine all by yourself. I bet you would love to take down Mike's photobucket account , wouldn't you ? ... but not because of any images of you in it ... He does have a way with words and exposing the faked Apollo photographs , doesn't he ? Mike is using work created BY ME and protected by US copyright laws WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. He has been given fair warning. Your latest tap dance was very impressive ... especially the dance with the BIG RED LETTERS . In other words you can't refute any of it. (Nothing major edited. Point still made. Thanks, Duane for your accomodation.) Edited October 21, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 Your obvious mis-use of photoshop is quite impressive I must say . How very clever of you to place a little round blue circle in the middle of that strange shaped artificial light source reflection, to pretend that it's the Sun . I wonder how many people you fooled with that ? ... I also wonder why it took you so long to come up with that very clever idea ... Maybe you ran for help with this one too , since you obviously had no rebuttal to this evidence . Yes , it does look as though the boys at BAUT and clavius have once again come to your rescue ... Of all the Apollo mis-information you have posted here so far , this really is some of your best work yet ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Finding information or photos on the internet and using them on a post is fine, as long as the url is provided. I believe that for copyrighted material the copyright owner must be contacted for permission to use it. I am getting quite fed up with reading complaints regarding this thread (I just went through 19 Pm messages most of which concerned this thread). If this continues to cause this much trouble I will lock this thread and ask fellow moderators not to re-open it. The next step after that will be to submit a request to John Simkin to have more members placed on moderation. I have better things to do on this Forum than to review 17 complaints for this one thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 (edited) Your obvious mis-use of photoshop is quite impressive I must say .Mis-use? Its a very simialr process to one in which you champion. So if it fails for this work, shall we disregard the work you find so compelling and support? How very clever of you to place a little round blue circle in the middle of that strange shaped artificial light source reflection, to pretend that it's the Sun . Now you accuse me of ADDING something to this image? Bad boy Duane!. As I stated the process was a simple levels adjustment in Photoshop, one of the most basic adjustments possible. Anyone can do it and I "added" nothing to the image. What you see is the result of the levels adjustment process. Next time you accuse me of something, BACK IT UP WITH FACTS! I wonder how many people you fooled with that ? ... I also wonder why it took you so long to come up with that very clever idea ... Maybe you ran for help with this one too , since you obviously had no rebuttal to this evidence . Fooled? Why should anyone be fooled? They can check my work for themself. Thats the perfered method of investigation, unlike the standard hoaxer policy of "belief". I've asked no one for help in thyis matter, because unlike you I know the material. I've had my rebuttal all along, but it was far more fun to watch your antics before posting it. Bessides you have posted no evidence at all to support you (or is that St. Marks...its so hard to tell these days?) absurd claim that there is some exptic pentongonal studio light ot barndoors out there in the wild some place. I'm still waiting to see THAT one! Yes , it does look as though the boys at BAUT and clavius have once again come to your rescue ... Of all the Apollo mis-information you have posted here so far , this really is some of your best work yet ! If you plan on making claims such as this in the future I suggest you have evidence to back them up. Next time its off to the report button for you. I await your (or will it be St. Marks?) attempt to rebut the details I have presented...you CAN do that right?..or is this bluster the best you are capable of? Edited October 21, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 I am getting quite fed up with reading complaints regarding this thread (I just went through 19 Pm messages most of which concerned this thread). If this continues to cause this much trouble I will lock this thread and ask fellow moderators not to re-open it. The next step after that will be to submit a request to John Simkin to have more members placed on moderation. I have better things to do on this Forum than to review 17 complaints for this one thread. Other than moderators, the only participants in this thread are Craig, Duane and to a much lesser extent Jack. Instead of complaining, why can't people simply skip the thread? In my opinion, this would be more respectful of the moderators' time and responsibilities. It is clear that at least 3 moderators were following the thread (Stephen, Evan, and Kathy). I can see a complaint or two now and then, but 17 complaints to one moderator when there are essentially only two participants in a thread that is plainly being moderated seems somehow excessive to me. It just seems people could better allocate their time, or at least have more respect for Antti's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 I only submitted three complaints here about Lamson's repeated false accusation of me being a plagierist ... So I guess the other 14 complaints came from him ..... Though what he has to complain about I really can't undertand ... Maybe a couple came from Jack for getting knocked off the forum again while trying to submit a moderated post , but I don't know that for a fact . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 22, 2007 Author Share Posted October 22, 2007 I sent Mike St. Mark a PM this morning letting him know that you wanted him to remove your copyrighted images from his photobucket account . I also sent him this PM , to let him know that you finally posted a 'rebuttal' to his visor reflection findings .... I'm sure he will get back to you with his reply as soon as he can . Here's my message to Mike . Mike ... This photoshoped image is what Lamson is trying to pass off as the Sun ! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Instead of doing this by proxy, why don't you ask Mr St Mark to join here and present his own views directly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 22, 2007 Author Share Posted October 22, 2007 Evan ... I've asked Mike about joining the Education Forum to debate Lamson but he said he has been reading the posts here and doesn't much like the way the conspiracy researchers are treated . He doesn't care much for BAUT or clavius / Apollo Hoax for the same reason as well .... So he has offered to debate craig or you or anyone else who might be interested , on his personal YouTube profile page ... but so far craig hasn't taken him up on his offer , but prefers to stay here where the CT's are very much out numberd and now even controlled with moderation by you , a defender of Apollo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Evan ... I've asked Mike about joining the Education Forum to debate Lamson but he said he has been reading the posts here and doesn't much like the way the conspiracy researchers are treated .He doesn't care much for BAUT or clavius / Apollo Hoax for the same reason as well .... So he has offered to debate craig or you or anyone else who might be interested , on his personal YouTube profile page ... but so far craig hasn't taken him up on his offer , but prefers to stay here where the CT's are very much out numberd and now even controlled with moderation by you , a defender of Apollo. How about if I abstain from moderation in a specific debate thread between Mr St Mark and Craig? Have one of the other mods oversee it, a mod of your choice? Nobody else allowed to post in the thread but those two (St Mark / Lamson ... and the mod)? Equal number, fair moderation, no interference. Can't get fairer than that. 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