Craig Lamson

Cut the crap John, this is NOT emperical! You have postred two images downthread of worthless quaility and you are making detailed comparisons? Give me a break! Its simple...the Bond and MM images are from NEARLY the same LOS, but sorry to burst your bubble, but NEARLY WILL NOT CUT IT! Continue to wave your hands until the cows come home, but your comparison is worthless.

With all respect...bullcrap. The horizon IS localized and unusable. MM and Bond are NOT on the same exact LOS and have differing subject to camera distances. You are using low res images in an attempt to create an exact alignment. You are using verticals at the edge of a frame as vertical rotational anchors. You are simply waving your hands. I really could care less what frame matches what frame, what I do care about is that your methods pass the smell test, and in this case they do not.

John, The Bonds photos do not show the true horizon, only a localized horizon. In any case you simply can't use a vertical at the edge af a frame for a point of rotational alignment. That is unless the image has been corrected for perspectivre change form any camera tilt (and rest assured the is some tilt) and geometric distortion introduced by the lens (pincushion, barrel). Also any attenpt to use a horizontal line as a rotational indicator is also fools play since any camera deviation from perfectly square to the horizontal line in question will also cause perspective shift. (again unless the line in question is in the exact center of the frame) I do this stuff everyday, correcting images I create. I quite often produce iinterior photographs using single point perspective. It was quite easy back in the day using a view camera and film, but now, using a digital DSLR, the process takes place in the computer. If you would like I will be glad to post example to illustrate my point.

John, this is very hard to follow, but let me ask you one question. Are you rotating the MM frame to vertical using the edge of the wall at the far right hand side of the frame? If so you have a problem. For any image in which the camera was pointed up or down from true level, perspective shift will occur. I'm sure you are aware of this. So lets take an image that contains this shift, from even a sling downwards pointing of the camera. True vertical lines in this image will now be skewed outward from bottom to top on the sides of the frame, moving inwards with less degree of tilt, until you reach the center of the frame where regardless of the downward tilt of the camera, any true vertical in the image will be correctly imaged. In other words, you simply can't choose a vertical near the edges of the frame to use as a guide to rotate an image to true vertical.

Heres the deal Duane. I don't want you to stop posting...in fact I want you to continue. Why? Because you are the PERFECT example of a person arguing a subject from a position of abject ingnorance. You make the CT club look oh so silly. Lets take a different approach. You own a antique business and as such you must have a fair knowlege base about antiques. I on the other hand am totally ignorant about the subject of antiques. I would be STUPID to engage you in a debate about the merits a some antique item. If I were to research the subject and then learn the lessons needed I might be able to argue on some low level with you but the chances are I'm still going to get my butt kicked. Thats the position you are in. For example you are ignorant about the properties of studio lighting and shadow...as you have proven by your words on this forum. I on the other hand have made my living for almost three decades creating studio lighting....I'm a master on the subject. When you attempt to tell me your "opinion" about how light and shadow works trumps my years of experience..AND THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT...you are just being stupid. This is not a slam nor an insult against you... just a simple statement of fact. You play the victim very well..but the reality is that you are a victim of your own ignorance of the subject matter you have chosen to argue. Now lets get back on subject. You have shucked and jived for quite a few posts and as of yet you yet to deal with the main charge...you using NASA data when it pleases you and on the other hand discounting NASA data when it hurts you. As I said eariler, you can't have it both ways. Exactly how are you planning on changing?

Your ignorance of even the simply things is simply overwhelming Duane. Take your "footlights" argument for example. You went on and on. waving your hands like you had an understanding of the physics of light and shadow, when it was clear to everyone that you did not even have a clue. The arguments that destroyed your ignorant and failed position simply flew right over your head...and you still remain clueless as to why you were in error. Beneath you...not even close. You are simply one more CT wallowing away in ignorance. No sir the insecurity is all yours. You simply are not equipped to continue in this level of discussion. That is not to say you can't learn, but by all of your actions it seems that is the last thing you have in mind. Now when you are ready to engage in real discussion using REAL facts and science, and not just your standard ...stick your fingers in your ears...I'll be happy to join. Until then I will continue to point out your shortfalls in regards to the subjects you choose to discuss. You are simpl

Of course you are being intellectually dishonest. Once again. You claim that noting stated by NASA can be used, and then ...when it fits your needs, you use stuff from NASA..or at least what YOU think comes from NASA. Spin that however you want but its a simple fact.... I've made no "implications" about you being a "georgia cracker" but if that how you want to be seen, fine by me. You have yet to deal with anyones rebuttal in an honest fashion. I posted many, but it seems they are totally over your head. As for my open mind, I've done the legwork and found the ignorant ravings of the moon hoaxers to be without merit. Bring some claim that can withstand inspection and I'll accept it. Thats how being open minded works. Thats a lesson you need to learn.

What insults? All I see are two very astute observations about your lack of intellectual honesty. You are going to be up to your neck in red Georgia clay if you keep spinning Duane. Now how about dealing wth your little problem of using NASA when it suits your worldview and then dismissing them out of hand when it hurts your worldview. You...open minded...not even close!

Grow up Jack, You stated that the film was PROCESSED in total darkness...not just LOADED onto the reels in darkness. And no, most sheet film was and is processed in deep tanks on stainless steel racks. Not that it matters, the film in question was 35mm roll film.

Jack, page 317 is the page that interested me. Altgens went straight to the lab to have his photos processed. The photo lab was a very small space and whether Altgens spoke on the phone while standing there overseeing them being processed or helped do them himself ... I won't try to split hairs over that one. I will add however, that it was through Gary Mack at some point where I heard it was said that Altgens was involved in the processing of his photos. The bottom line is that Ike Altgens went immediately to have the photos processed - saw them for only a moment upon completion before they were sent off and this is why his memory so many years later on which photos were his was somewhat vague on a couple of them. Bill Miller Balderdash. You have never processed film in a darkroom. It is a one-person job IN TOTAL DARKNESS. No telephone lights. No overseeing needed. Usually at big newspapers, the darkroom staff did processing and printing, not the photographers. You are misrepresenting what is on page 318 of Trask. This is not splitting hairs, it is lying. At large newspapers photographers used to turn in film, the darkroom staff developed and made contact prints and handed them to editors who ordered enlargements. The photographer did not participate on breaking news stories after snapping the shutter. Reading farther down the page on 318, we see that Altgens told Trask that he "TOOK FIVE OF THE PHOTOS" and NEVER SAW ALL OF THE PRINTS BEFORE THE NEGATIVES WERE SENT TO NEW YORK. There is nothing about him seeing the photos for "only a moment"...quite to the contrary he said HE HAD NEVER ACQUIRED A SET OF HIS PICTURES. What I am trying to recall is where I read that Altgens years ago denied taking #5 and #8. Trask hints at it, but does not say. Jack Oh come on Jack, more silly misinformation. Roll film can be, and most often is, processed in room light inside of closed tanks. Once the film is loaded in the tank the processing proceeds with the lights turned on. Processing machines may work in darkness and also the first few steps of a deep tank process will be carried out in darkness (developer, stop, and the first minute or so of fix) with the remainder of the process (remaining fix, hypo clear, wash and wettting bath) carried out in room light. I've spend lots of time talking on the phone and processing film...can't you multitask?

Beep Beep Beep...back up the bus there Duane. You seem to be VERY willing to accept someones unsourced words "from NASA" that the moon rocks were gathered by automotic means, yet you willingly deny any words from NASA when they knock your ideas to the floor. You can't have it both ways....

I must admit that upon further inspection I concur that the objects have shape and therefore cannot be a reflection.

I think its a bit of a leap to consider the white bars to be arms. Once you consider the depth of the wall ( around a foot or a bit less IIRC) and the height of the window ( about 9 inches again IIRC) its going to be pretty tough to get a pair of arms and hands to drape almost to the sidewalk from the second window. However it might be a possibility. I've seen some pretty strange reflections from vehicles I've photographed over the last 20 years or so. In any case the fact that the shapes change when they pass over the Newmans suggests that the Newmans broke or altered the path of the reflections. I'm afraid this is going to be an area that defies a specfic conclusion.

Thanks for reposting these images... they clearly show that someone standing on a car bumper would have an excellent vantage point through the first window. I agree, these latter day photos are indicative of the need to stand on something. One must accept that. Equally the need of a ladder is not there. Like you say the back of a car bumper, or perhaps a pickup truck would do. But back then the parking lot/rr yard was not much more than a paddock with rails crossing it. It wasn't landscaped. A photo of the day showing the topography/condition of the rear of the pagoda is needed. Still, apart from establishing how someone could be at the second opening and track Kennedy, the tracking motion remains. It hasn't and wont evaporate by distractions. In fact it won't evapoarate at all. It's there in the film. No one has seen it before because no-one has been able to align the frames correctly to show it happening. And, in order to bring it out you have to increase the gamma to the point that what most would normally want to see is washed out. And finally the timing of the frames and the consequent understanding of the fragment path directions hasn't been done properly before. Now that it has been done, a new place to look at became possible. And in looking at it there is the movement of a dark line tracking Kennedy's head. Sorry, but there it is. No amount of ignoring it or attempting to divert attention will ever change that. It shows that the analysis of the evidence available is far from finished. Far from it. The revolution in the electronic world in capabilities and sharing results, has and will continue to bring results not possible before. post #200: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=85536 You might not like it but that doesn't change it. What is it? A ghillie wrapped rifle with a flash cone? An interesting discovery John. However I think you are seeing it wrong. The "black line" seems not to be moving at all. I suggest it is simply the darkness of the wall. I think what you see moving is the white lines as they trace over the darkness of the wall. This "white lines" seem to extend from the second window clear to the sidewalk level. So what could the white lines be? I might suggest a reflection of the sun off of some chrome part of the limo. That would explain the "tracking" as the reflections would change position on the wall as the limo moves forward. (it could even be a reflection from one of the motorcyles). I was reminded of this today while playing with the cat by flashing spots of light on the far wall of the room and watching the cat chase them...bright spots of lights created by sunlight through a window reflecting from the crystal of my wristwatch and moving over the wall as I moved my wrist.

If you don't keep your forum current with the latest software updates your forum become susceptible to hackers very quickly. I have found this out the hard way in the past. I am sure even those with a natural conservative outlook will come to terms with the changes eventually Andy, this is a serious question to you: do you have any interest at all in helping users be able to use the forum effectively, or are you primarily interested in opportunities for zippy one-liners? Security updates don't require retooling the interface in ways that are non-standard and platform-exclusive. It's the cosmetics that have broken functionality, not security issues. So my next serious question is are you going to do anything about it or not? Ashton It appears the forum is also broken using Mac OSX and Microsoft Internet Explorer as well.

Jack, Below the text window is a fade blue box labeled "attachments" On the right side select BROWSE and find your image, then press UPLOAD.

Pardon me Andy, I'll keep my fingers in check.

Boy are you dense. Krantz, statement is a wonderful. it shows just how important the sims being realistic were to the program. Krantz's statement in no way impeaches the Apollo missions, well except in your mind but that hardly counts. But lets see where you are in your little theory. Apollo 11 launches, which you claim is real. From here on out everything else is fake...the flight controllers are dealing with a computer sim...well at least up to return to earth. WOW! So the sims were modular in nature and incapable of running large chunks of the mission but you claim they fed the controllers sim data for what, 190 hours or so? Amazing! So now the balls in your court again, How did they feed the controllers 190+ hours of continuous data? Oh and WHY was the technology in the 60's incapable of supporting the Apollo missions? Boy are you a creep ... If I'm dense it's only because I continue to reply to your rude posts .... Thanks for reminding me why Jack never bothers to respond to your crap .... He has more intelligence than to try to argue with jerks like you .. and actually I do too .... So don't expect any more replies from me unless your questions are posed without your typical insults . ... Too bad this forum isn't moderated because there is no excuse for the way you act here . Yes , Gene Krantz's statement was wonderful because he let us all know how mission control was fooled into believing the Apollo landings were real , when they weren't . "So now the balls in your court again, How did they feed the controllers 190+ hours of continuous data? " "NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear. " Oh and don't bother running to clavius to post their lame 'rebuttal' here , because I've already read it and it's just more typical nasa disinformation and lies . "Oh and WHY was the technology in the 60's incapable of supporting the Apollo missions?" "In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator. " And now I await your clavius disinformation reply with much anticipation ! LOL Jack CAN'T respond because when he does he is shown to be lacking in even the of the basic principals of photography. So he hides away and pretends his work has never been debunked, fingers in his ears just like you. One little problem with TERE-A...it was in low earth orbit. Thats a dead give away for the folks on the ground. So much for that little gambit. You have been debunked. Wanna play again, or you could simply concede. Ah the old "not enough computer play"..right out of the HB's sandard playbook. Just why do we need a modern computer to run the Apollo spacecraft? Prior to Apollo people were able to (and still can) navigate the worlds oceans using only the stars. Huge math problems can still be solved with a sliderule and not a computer. The Hoover dam was designed and built without a computer. Automobiles ran just fine without a computer. The 707 was put into service in 1954, without a top of the line 2002 computer. The first flight of the 747 was in 1969, using the same computer technology available to Apollo. I could go on and on, but the fact of the matter is that things were designed, built and operated quite nicely without high end computers. Its easy to forget that when your entire life has included computers, video games and such. Now why were nav computers for Apollo not up to the task? Proof please. And by the way please provide proof for this statement: "Oh and don't bother running to clavius to post their lame 'rebuttal' here , because I've already read it and it's just more typical nasa disinformation and lies."

Boy are you dense. Krantz, statement is a wonderful. it shows just how important the sims being realistic were to the program. Krantz's statement in no way impeaches the Apollo missions, well except in your mind but that hardly counts. But lets see where you are in your little theory. Apollo 11 launches, which you claim is real. From here on out everything else is fake...the flight controllers are dealing with a computer sim...well at least up to return to earth. WOW! So the sims were modular in nature and incapable of running large chunks of the mission but you claim they fed the controllers sim data for what, 190 hours or so? Amazing! So now the balls in your court again, How did they feed the controllers 190+ hours of continuous data? Oh and WHY was the technology in the 60's incapable of supporting the Apollo missions?

LMAO! Why? Why not? You are a target rich environment....sport shooting if you will. And talk about protesting too much...you have gotten your tit in a wringer big time with your posts and the quotes "not out of context" prove it. Be a man and simply accept that you are clueless. Or continue to "protest" LOL! Thanks for "giving the game away" Duane. Oh and there you go again: "If I am really so uninformed and "in over my head" about Apollo, then why do you spend so much time trying to refute every word I post here ?" Every word? Not by a long shot! Your words matter Duane. Next time tell the truth, or I'll catch you again! Bang Bang. added on edit: Sorry I missed this one, you really outdid yourself today!: "Saying that I am dishonest is just psychological projection , as it would be you who argue everything on this forum in a completely dishonest manner ." EVERYTHING I ARGUE ON THIS FORUM IS DONE IN A COMPLETELY DISHONEST MANNER? Can you back that up or is this just MORE of Duanes standard BS? Of course it is BS! Bang Bang!

See there you go again....you just stated : "I already admitted that I said launch when I meant to say landing , so why bring it up again ? ..." But that does not reflect what you really said: ". .... Krantz stated that it was IMPOSSIBLE to distinguish the difference between a real launch and landing from a simulated one ..." Thats simply not the truth. Your original statement included both launch and landing....you didn't misphrase in your statement and use the wrong word, you clearly used both and that was clearly your intent. You only changed your position when you were about to get your tit in a wringer...and now you simply can't tell the truth. I've no problem with Krantz's words that the sims were realistic, in fact unless they WERE realistic they would be useless. It takes a pretty big leap to go from Krantz telling everyone how good the sims were to your claim that it impeaches the Apollo missions, especially in light of the fact that the sims were modular in nature. You are simply positing an very illogical theory. Your words however are a different story. And oh what a story they tell. You have shown us many times over that you will shuck and jive, and change your story to fit your current situation. Thats not the mark of intellectual honesty. Handwaving at its finest. And thats the real problem with your arguments and rebuttals Duane. You have no background tn the areas you are protesting when it comes to the Apollo photography and yet you would have us believe that your simply act of viewing photographs is enough of a knowlege base to rebut real photographic fact. You also have shown your interpretive skills are sorely lacking but time and time again you simply dismiss hard evidence based on nothing more than your uninformed opinion. Why keep rehashing your words? Because it shows the bankrupt nature of your position. You have my number? How quaint, but don't flatter yourself. You don't even have your own number yet. Refuting you is meaningless. You don't have the intellectual honesty to deal with the evidence, you simply stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it does not exist, all the while proclaiming your position as correct. You really have no choice, because you don't have the background or the knowlege to deal with the evidence...its simply over your head. AS to the doco, Dave posted the rebuttal to your claim about Krantz and the landing. No need to do it again. Of course since its your claim (and one that seems to be made up out of thin air) you are the one that needs to back it up. Buy the dvd or rent it if you want to refute the post made by Dave.... Sorry found another one Duane...sheesh You now say: ..."post exactly what Gene Krantz said about his relief over Armstrong landing the LM on the 'moon' , when he couldn't land in the sims without crashing it ..." So you now contend that Armstrong NEVER landed the LM during ANY of the sims? Quite a statement Duane. Please back it up with some facts.

Gosh Charlie, it would seem we must add your "very limited" ability to read to your growing list of attributes..ie. "very unlimited" In any case, the Zapruder film was shot in 1963, and lets assume for the sake of argument that they had some super duper process to alter film, kept in secret. Now regardless of the higly advanced nature of this super duper, double secret process, it must follow the laws of physics and the science of light and film. And lets also assume that over the past 40 years or so this suder duper, double top secret process has finally made it into the film industry ( which quite frankly is where it would have been most likely to have been developed in the first place). Can todays film tech produce conposites that are undectable? Of course not. But in charlies land of paranoia, the possibility existed in 63 for the same to be possible. Amazing! Its a very nice fantasy though...if one finds comfort in fantasy. I'm sure you find it comfortable since a world of fantasy is where you seem to reside. Happy Holidays!

Why charlie how nice to hear from you. This is quite an instructive post of yours....it seems you have a very limited ability to construct a decent ad hom, much like your very limited ablity to understand the mechanics of film alteration. enjoy your day. nice picture, btw.....

Len, Bills statement is not simply a paraphrasing of the Zavada statement. Its not even close. Bill tells us that the problem with duplicating Kodachrome film is that the film is Daylight balanced and that you must use "artifical" light (tungsten balance) to dupe the film. And using this 'artifical" light causes colorshifts. This is a silly argument. First Zavada tells us that the film was designed for visual color responce when viewed with 3200K light. Thats Bills "artifical light" or tungsten. There is no "problem" being caused by the Kodachome original being projected (or contact printed) via 3200k light. Kodachome was available in both daylight and tungsten emulsions. It was also available in a low contrast dupe stock (tungsten balance) There was no real problem with any of these films as far as the color temp of the light source used during duplication. If you wanted to use the daylight film with tungsten light you simply filtered the lightsource. What Zavada is telling us is that its the dye sets and the spectural responce of the iintermediate films that cause the problems when taking the original Kodachome POSITIVE film into a motion picture workflow. There were NO film sets designed to create sucessful intermediates when starting with Kodachrome film. Kodachrome has a very unique dye set and the process used to transfer the dyes is also unique. Its this unique dye set that causes problems duplicating Kodachome film. The color temp of the lightsource has nothing to do with the problem.