Craig Lamson Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) I believe it is Dr. Neville Jones who is the physicist and Nathan Jones who is an astronomer ... Apparently some people were claiming that Dr. Nathan Jones was a non-existant person , like Charles T. Hawkins ... but I found these sites which proves Nathan Jones does exist .. Plus some unkind comments ( go figure ) about him on Bad Astronomy .PH4011 Spring 2002 11 am, Nathan Jones, Night Sky Photometry With CONCAM. Apr. 18 4 pm, Peter Hoffmann, Dept of Physics & Astronomy, Wayne State University, "Touching Atoms ... www.phy.mtu.edu/~gagin/PH4011-s02.html http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~gagin/PH4011-s02.html Chemistry News-uwo Nathan Jones and Paul Ragogna are receipients of Early Researcher Awards from the ... along with the Department of Physics and Astronomy and the Faculty of ... www.uwo.ca/chem/aboutus/news.htm http://www.uwo.ca/chem/aboutus/news.htm President Paul Davenport ... Andrew Leask, Department of Oral Biology; Nathan D. Jones, Department of Chemistry ... Department of Physics and Astronomy, Department of Pharmacology ... www.uwo.ca/pvp/honour_roll/faculty/research/prea.htm http://www.uwo.ca/pvp/honour_roll/faculty/research/prea.htm You are kididng...right? SO which one of these DIFFERENT PEOPLE is the Nathan Jones who wrote the APOLLO FAQ? Or is it even any of these. ANd of course there is the fine DEBUNKING of YOUR nathan Jones by Jay Widley. You will also notice if you read Jays comments that duringhis exchange with Jones on the usenet, Jones FAILED TO DISCLOSE HIS QUALIFICATIONS...wonder why. Sorry Duane you are simply grasping at straws and posting even more disinformation.....again Edited January 31, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 31, 2007 Author Share Posted January 31, 2007 Can you prove that Nathan Jones is not this person ? ... And more importantly , can you prove that his Apollo FAQ are wrong ? .... Without copying Jay Utah's lame attempts of rebuttal , that is . It would seem as if you don't have anything original to offer to any subject ... except for more insults . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Can you prove that Nathan Jones is not this person ? ... And more importantly , can you prove that his Apollo FAQ are wrong ? .... Without copying Jay Utah's lame attempts of rebuttal , that is .It would seem as if you don't have anything original to offer to any subject ... except for more insults . Well DUANE, Its you who is claiming you know who wrote the FAQ, we simply want your proof. So far all you have offered is a link to some Nathan Jones who was going to giv e short talk, and who's educational status is unknown and you have given us a Nathan Jones who is a professor of CHEMISTRY in Canada. SO you only have ONE person you can actually contact. WHy not do so? Or you can keep on deluding yourself that your ghost Nathan Jones, brother of Charles Hawkins is actually real. ROFLMAO! WHy should I redo the wonderful debunking of your latest spook by Jay? Its a masterpiece! And I have to laugh when the master of cut and paste, Duane, talks about original works.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 31, 2007 Author Share Posted January 31, 2007 lamson .. The bottom line is this ... You haven't debunked Nathan Jones' Apollo FAQ claims , because you wouldn't know how to debunk anyone ... and if you really believe that Jay's lame pretense of debunking his work is a masterpiece , then you're more of a moron than I thought . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Can you prove that Nathan Jones is not this person ? ... And more importantly , can you prove that his Apollo FAQ are wrong ? .... Without copying Jay Utah's lame attempts of rebuttal , that is .It would seem as if you don't have anything original to offer to any subject ... except for more insults . Actually, that's a fair point. I'm not prepared to say Nathan Jones does not exists or that he does not hold the qualifications claimed until I confirm for myself that the links Duane provided refer to a different person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 lamson .. The bottom line is this ... You haven't debunked Nathan Jones' Apollo FAQ claims , because you wouldn't know how to debunk anyone ... and if you really believe that Jay's lame pretense of debunking his work is a masterpiece , then you're more of a moron than I thought . duane, I've not attempted to debunk Nathan Jones faq. I've pointed out that Jays works is indeed a masterpiece and it is superb in the areas of my understanding. As such WHY should I attempt to add more? As for the areas beyond my knowlegebase, I will not argue those points. Others wilth better qualifications can and have. You have shown that you have no knowlegebase for anay of this yet you argue it as if you do. Please explain IN DETAIL why Jays rebuttal to Jones is "lame" and why Jones is correct.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 To answer your question ... The shadow conforms to being taken on a moon set because it was pasted in the photo after the fact .... BACKWARDS ! Shadows were PASTED IN? Are you making this stuff up as you go along? In that case, where is the shadow from the light source? This is one of the most laughable scenarios you've come up with yet for explaining how they faked photos. You do know there is video footage of the astronaut taken at the same time, showing the shadow in the same place? Did they erase the real shadows and paste the fake ones in every single frame? Can you not grasp how utterly ludicrous this claim is? Bottom line is, you can dream up as many different ways as you like for faking lunar photos, but it's not based in reality. All you're doing is reinforcing your cosy little fantasy. Look at the shadow in the photo. This has been stretched vertically to counter the flatness of the shadow. You can clearly see the shadow of the astronaut is bent at the waist, just like the astronaut is. You can see the shadow of one of his arms, his helmet (slightly mis-shapen as it is cast on uneven terrain), and very clearly make out the shadow of the PLSS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 31, 2007 Author Share Posted January 31, 2007 Too funny ... You actually stretched the shadow so it would bend forward and conform to the position of the astronot .... You really are quite a piece of work .... and a master of deception .... Is that the same still photo you altered or a still frame from the video ? The PLSS pack is still in the wrong place but now the astronot's shadow is bent over backwards ... The shadow is still backwards , no matter how much you distorted it ... If you look at it closely , you can even see the PLSS hose coming out of the pack .... How did you bend it like that ?... and how desperate can you be just to try to prove me wrong ? Actually by you strectching the shadow , it's now even more obvious that it's backwards and the the PLSS is in the front of the shadow . By the way , the videos were not filmed at the same time the still photos were taken ... and this has been proven by many hoax investigators . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 31, 2007 Author Share Posted January 31, 2007 Getting back on topic .. and speaking of faked moon photos ... Do you think the moon comes with heart shaped 'craters' or maybe just some whistle blowers having a laugh ?.... Or did the astro-actors maybe take valuable time from their limited EVA time , doing those oh so important experiments on the moon ( like testing the radiation levels ), to dig a heart shaped hole in the fake lunar soil ? What a bunch of clowns those Apollo astro-actors were... Alan Bean is so dumb he doesn't even know if they flew high enough to have encountered the Van Alllen belts while flying to the moon ... but he was bright enough to carve a heart into the fake dirt of the moon set ! ..What a joke . AS12-47-6938 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Too funny ... You actually stretched the shadow so it would bend forward and conform to the position of the astronot .... You really are quite a piece of work .... and a master of deception .... Is that the same still photo you altered or a still frame from the video ? Duane, don't blame me for your lack of analysis skills. I clearly stated that I'd vertically stretched the photo to make it easier to see the detail of the shadow. You don't need to take my word for it - you can easily do exactly the same thing using MS Paint. The PLSS pack is still in the wrong place but now the astronot's shadow is bent over backwards ... The shadow is still backwards , no matter how much you distorted it ... If you look at it closely , you can even see the PLSS hose coming out of the pack .... How did you bend it like that ?... and how desperate can you be just to try to prove me wrong ?You can indeed see what appears to be a hose coming out of the PLSS. However, the shadow is clearly that of an astronaut bending forwards - which is no surprise given that the astronaut is bending forward too.Actually by you strectching the shadow , it's now even more obvious that it's backwards and the the PLSS is in the front of the shadow .By the way , the videos were not filmed at the same time the still photos were taken ... and this has been proven by many hoax investigators . Yes they were. And no it hasn't. Unless you have proof or evidence to the contrary? That's evidence, not insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 31, 2007 Author Share Posted January 31, 2007 Here's another beaut from from the Apollo 12 photo shoot ... It's the Bean again ... but this time he is dangling from his fly system making some very obvious fly system little dancing bootprints, with no bootprints leading up to his photo op dangle . AS12-49-7213 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 31, 2007 Author Share Posted January 31, 2007 Looks like the artists got a tad carried away with this one ... Did it perhaps snow inside that big crater , or is maybe the sun shining on that crater like a huge spotlight ? AS12-52-7739 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) Looks like the artists got a tad carried away with this one ... Did it perhaps snow inside that big crater , or is maybe the sun shining on that crater like a huge spotlight ? AS12-52-7739 Nice photo. Looks strikingly similar to this one taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in Jun 1998. Could the difference in contrast possibly be explained by different methods of image capture and processing of the images? Was the image pushed in processing? Or photoshopped to improve contrast for internet images? Or was the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter unmanned programme also faked? Or maybe (shock horror) they might both be genuine? http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00094 http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA00094.jpg Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech Edit - and here's the image under discussion, processed in such a way that it more closely resembles the LRO images. Edited January 31, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 31, 2007 Author Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) Speaking of funky looking shadows ... The shadows in front of astro-actor Buzz point in a diagonal angle to the left of him on the moon set floor ... Yet in his visor reflection , those same shadows appear to be pointing in a much different direction , straight ahead of him ... Hmmmm ... Those huge arc lights on the moon set sure did some very weird things with those shadows . Edited January 31, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 31, 2007 Author Share Posted January 31, 2007 Thanks for the photo comparison ... It looks like the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photo angle was changed a bit and then borrowed from the fake Apollo 11 photo , to pass off as their own .... So you mean the Orbitor photos are faked too ? ... Now that IS funny ! 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