Evan Burton

I didn't know that Greg - thanks. It will be interesting. For members with families (most of ADF) it will be a huge retention factor. It will cost a shedful of money, but the retention savings would far outweigh that I believe. The only problem will be the stress on the ADF medical personnel, (primarily doctors) who are already critically understaffed.

Come on guys - stop the bickering.

Like Matt, all my medical / dental is via the ADF. Difference for us is that partners / dependents are not entitled to treatment at Government expense... but since I have neither, it worries me not.

I've contacted a group of recognised Photoshop professionals, and have asked them to review Jack's work.

I'll see if anyone decides to do so in the next few days, although I would imagine Xmas will make the time a lot longer. Perhaps by mid-JAN 08 I will have a report (if someone decides to accede to my request).

Merry Xmas, Duane, and hoping you have a safe & prosperous New Year.

You are not the first to be fooled, and you won't be the last. Through my reading I have discovered that many photographers have also been taken in by this, the difference between what WE see and what the CAMERA sees.

A lot of this is counter-intuitive; often the only way to be convinced is to do the experiment yourself and see the results for yourself.

Anyway - cheers & beers!

Now, forget those other objects in the background (gazebo, tree). Just concentrate on the monument and the tombstone.

If I scaled the tombstone in the top image to be the same size as the tombstone in the bottom image, the monument in the (scaled) top image would be enormous!

Does that make things any clearer?

Duane (and Jack),

When you have a few moments spare, have a read of this site.

Here is the pertinent extract (but there is a lot of good material in there):

Changing camera-to-subject distance does change perspective as shown here. As the camera is moved closer to the foreground subject (bottom), the subject appears to increase in size relative to the background. This changing relationship between the size of objects in the foreground and background creates the difference in perspective.

This is exactly what I am demonstrating in my diagramme.

This diagram is irrelevant. Distance from camera to LM is estimated in YARDS, Distance from camera to LM is estimated in MILES! Therefore the diagram does not represent the topic being discussed and shows a lack of understanding of the topic.

Jack

PS...same applies to Stone's diagram on subsequent posting.

Jack... my diagramme doesn't use any units of length. It is purely a visual diagramme which shows how an object will appear. It is correct, and relevant because it is exactly the mistake you are making. If you can't understand that, I don't know where to start. Perhaps ask one of the teachers from the Mathematics or Science forums to check the diagramme. That will confirm the basic premise. Then ask if the same effect is taking place in the images.

I know you won't like the answer.

Evan ... I will take you up on your offer to photograph distant mountains in comparison to close up objects .... I would very much like to see you prove that mountains appear LARGER the FURTHER AWAY you get from them and SMALLER the CLOSER you get to them , like they look in the Apollo 17 photos .... This should be intreresting .... I tried to read your old post about this but the links are no longer working .

The link is working for me; have another go when you get time.

The demonstration photograph is one that you yourself should undertake. We can explain how to set up the shot (so you can see that it is similar to the lunar images), and you'll see the results for yourself. The one thing you have to understand is that the mountains do not 'appear larger'; the object in the foreground appears smaller or larger (depending on where the object was in relation to the photographer and the amount of zoom used). If you scale the images so the foreground objects are the same size, then the background objects are going to get bigger or smaller (depending on which image is scaled).

The next study you show is also one of Jack's that I answered 18 months ago here. When you are close to an object (e.g. the LM), its apparent size in relation to a distant background object (e.g. mountains) is much greater than when you are further away from the object (LM) and compare its apparent size to a distant background object (mountains). See the Clavius website for a more detailed explanation.

Here is a diagramme I drew up for that post. It explains why some things will appear bigger or smaller against a background, as you move toward or away from the object.

Now, in the above explanation, if we were to scale the black X so they are both the same size then the red background in the 'B' example (i.e. the mountain) would appear to be much larger... but you know it is not. It is an effect of the scaling.

Craig - I understand you are frustrated, but if a Forum member does not understand a concept you are putting forward, please say something like "I cannot help you understand the the concept here" or similar. Please do NOT associate any lack of understanding (if that is the case) with being stupid or "lack of smarts". Well educated people often do not understand concepts in another field.

First & final warning regarding this.

My suggestion would be to take the concept from first principles, the lead them through it step-by-step. If a stage is not understood or disputed, you can spend more time on it or use further examples. Perhaps photographic sites elsewhere might have some good explanations of the concept.

Duane,

We can easily show you are wrong by recreating the scene. We don't have a LM, but we can get large objects, flat terrain, and mountains in the distance. Now, before I do this, I just want to see if there are any conditions you want to set. I don't want you accusing me of any 'fakery', so how would you like to confirm what I will do is on the level? Verified by local Police to say that the images are the same ones they saw taken? I'll use a digital camera, so they confirm what the scene looked like. Hell, they can even come back and watch me upload them, so there is a complete 'chain of evidence' for the images.

If you are happy, I'll post what distances were involved in the Apollo images, and what scenes I have available around here.

Dave, Craig, Matthew - you may also like to set up similar scenes in your own locales, to show it is not some type of localised effect. Make sure we explain what we did, so anyone with a camera can repeat the scene for themselves and verify what we are saying is correct.

Can one of the "Apollo apologists " please explain this strange occurance to me ? ... and while you're at it , could you also please explain why the rock, which has been pointed out , remains the same size , even though the photographer has moved much further away from it , the LM and that now enormous mountain in the second photo .

AH! That's one of Jack's studies, from some time ago. I explained that one about 18 months ago with this post; you'll also find out that the Clavius site has discussed it here.

We've used different approaches, but they both show where Jack is incorrect in his analysis.

Jack, don't forget to say WHAT you have done to go from the original image to the one you say there is a wrecker in. The professionals need to assess your process, not necessarily the result.

Are you happy for the Photoshop people to make an assessment? Or is there another (professional or certifiably competent) group that you would have more confidence in?

Okay, last minute post so as to avoid the inevitable recriminations:

1, BEST CONSPIRACY POSTER.

A tie. Len Colby because he does give references for his opinions, and Mark Stapleton because he makes very good arguements.

2, BEST OVERALL POSTER.

ME! Okay... it's not me but what else do you expect....

3, BEST NEWBIE.

Accogli Claudio

4, MOST ANOYING MEMBER.

Jack White - he's hit and run.

5, FUNNIEST TOPIC.

My brother never went to Egypt

6, FUNNIEST MEMBER.

David Guyatt

7, BEST TOPIC.

USS Liberty thread

8, SPECIAL AWARD FOR STAMINA.

Undecided

9, LIVELIEST ARGUEMENT (BETWEEN TWO, OR MORE MEMBERS)

John Bevilaqua and.....

10, MEMBER MOST LIKELY TO BE CIA, MOSSAD OR MI6.

Why not KGB?

11, MOST PARANOID MEMBER.

Peter Lemkin

12, SPECIAL AWARD FOR BEST HAT WORN IN AN AVATAR

Sorry Ashton, but it's Steve...

13,BEST PHOTOGRAPHIC POSTER.

Craig Lamson

14, MOST INFORMATIVE POSTER.

David Guyatt

15, BEST MODERATOR.

John S - followed closely by Antti and Kathy

16.FORUM SAGE:

Doug Caddy

17, FUNNIEST ANAGRAM MAKER

Bzzzzzt

18, MOST UNDER-RATED POSTER

Dave Greer

19, THE GIANT WHITE RABBIT AWARD

Harvey R. Abbot

20, MOST LIKELY TO WAX PHILOSOPHICAL AT THE DROP OF A POSTAL INSPECTOR

You got me on that one!

21, THE ALIEN ABDUCTION AWARD

I can't find them; where have they gone?

After reading your piece, I understand the HOW, not the WHY (per se).

Is it possible to turn the clock back?

I'm quite sure you're smarter than you let on, Evan.

No David, in actual fact I might be quite stupider vis a vis financial matter than you think!

I can understand the the military want to be able to react quickly, but the time of the need for an almost immediate retaliatory strike has passed. The issue now is security. Any use will be considered over a fairly long time. IMO, getting release authority for a nuke should be harder than getting the council to admit they made a mistake with a parking ticket!

Not to interrupt too loudly, but notice how Jack has gone all quiet regarding my challenge... again? Still? I think the likely answer for why is because he knows that there is a very good chance of professionals telling him that he misused the imaging programme (be it Photoshop or Gimp or whatever). Even though this is just an insignificant "study" compared to the rest of Jack's work, IMO Jack will not admit even the slightest hint of fallibility. We all make mistakes from time to time - but I get the impression that Jack would rather do many other things than admit his mistakes, to we 'Apollogists', on this subject.

Of course, it is very easy for Jack to prove me wrong, give me a slap-down... all he has to do is let professionals give an opinion.

I guess everyone is busy with the holidays

Bah, humbug!

I agree with Ron: Bah! Humbug!

I know of no prominent case where an accidental cause has been proved, just declared.

Jack

That poses a problem because some people will simply disregard the proof! It might be proof that stands up in a court of law, proof that is agreed upon by all the experts in the world, proof that nothing else could possibly have happened.... but there are in some cases who simply will not accept ANY proof, no matter the standard. They have their opinion, and they are sticking to it no matter what.

I have never claimed that APOLLO IMAGES ARE ALTERED.

My claim is that they are misrepresented as being taken on

the surface of the moon, when they obviously were taken

in an earthly setting. The photos are NOT FAKE; they

are real photos. Only the APOLLO EVENTS were faked,

not the photos.

Misstating my position is unworthy of a mighty moderator.

Jack

PS...I ignore your repeated "challenges" regarding my

"photoshopping" images because they are meaningless.

Though I own the PhotoShop program, I hardly ever

use it and have never used it in my Apollo studies.

All of my chroma pseudocolor studies are easily

replicated by anyone with ANY good graphics program;

get anyone you want to replicate them. All they have to

do is change COLOR LEVELS for RGB and the computer

finds the anomalies without ANY help.

The tool I used to lighten the "wrecker" is called the MAGIC WAND whether

in PhotoShop or one of its many lesser known clones. It works the same

in whatever program it is in. I have three different scanner programs with

the same tool.

When official information from NASA is used to "debunk" any of my studies,

I ignore them...since NASA is the one who faked the photos, and any info

from them is self-serving. If you want to "debunk"...do COUNTER-RESEARCH

and I might look at it.

So far all debunking attempts have failed.

Jack

Wait a second, just a few posts ago you said the photos were real and not faked...so which is it.

"The photos are NOT FAKE; they

are real photos."

And sorry but your silly offset shadow claim has been totally trashed by uninpeachable empirical evidence. One would need to be intellectually incompentent and dishonest to claim other wise.

Yep. Jack says all sorts of things these days. I think he is having memory recall problems.

Jack, instead of making incorrect statements, why not go back and check if you have said any such thing, or done any such thing, or used any such thing? Or say that you don't believe you have said / done but are willing to be corrected if someone will give an example? It would be far preferable, instead of making yourself look silly when you make such obviously wrong statements.

What is all this nonsense about "Card numbers" ...

At some stage someone posted a list of things that "disinfo agents" do, a guide to their behaviour. This is my mirror version of it, showing what HB'ers do, and pointing out as it happens.

...Talk about predictable ! ... This is just the typical ad homium techniques that all of you have learned from your mentor Jay Windley ... Can't any of you who defend Apollo ever be original ? ... Or better yet , polite ?

You see, this is yet another tactic. Card No5, I believe. If you can't defend - ATTACK! You can't defend the study (see below) so instead you attack. You accuse me of an ad hom... and you have to bring Jay Windley into it, didn't you? I haven't mentioned his name regarding this claim; not at all, I believe. But you had to drag his name into it so you could accuse me of being unoriginal. If you think I am being unoriginal - or worse, plagiarising someone else - please show examples. I'll do my best to answer them. You should note, however, this is the same stance I have taken about this particular study of jack's since my original rebuttals were posted. I might agree with others, but I am not aware they have commented on this particular study... as I have.

Do you really think that Jack is suppossed to remember every single Apollo study he has ever done , even when some of those studies were done several years ago? ... How ridiculous !!

So he used the Photoshop magic wand when finding the "wrecker " on the moonset ... So what ? ..... He now uses a different method to expose the amomalies in the phony Apollo photos ....and so what if he asked you the same questions about the rover again ? ....Is no one allowed to ever forget some of this information through the years ? ... I don't know why you feel the necessity to be so rude in your enthusisiam to defend every single photo of the official Apollo record , but it really isn't necessary .

It's quite simple. I've explained it multiple times to Jack, and I'll explain it to you.

Jack claims there is a "wrecker" in the image. That implies that the image could not be a real image from the Moon, that it must have been taken in a studio and carelessly the wrecker was not scrubbed out, etc. That it is evidence of "fakery".

I say it is simply Jack's misuse of Photoshop - or whatever imaging tool he used. I therefore challenged Jack to have the original image he used, his method of investigation, and his results, studied by people who are professionals in the field and let them determine whether he has uncovered something in the image or whether it was simply some type of artifact which has been exaggerated by the misuse of an imaging programme, and subjected further to Jack's fertile imagination. In short - that his method was incorrect.

Now, Jack (and you?) are saying it wasn't Photoshop (even though Jack's study specifically states it was, using capitalisation of Photoshop, using the term Magic Wand, and using a Registered Trade Mark symbol next to the word Photoshop). That's okay; as long as we know the methods jack used, and the tool Jack used, we can have experts in its use determine if Jack's methods were valid or not. Quite simple.

So - are you up to it Jack? I believe not; I believe you'll just spew invective at me, accuse me of all sorts of things, and ignore the challenge. As you always do when your claims are put to the test.

Some of these other cases are quite interesting, but I'd just like to iterate my point: sometimes unusual events happen without there being any nefarious cause. Just because an unusual event happens - in any field, be it aviation, production, etc - it does not automatically mean that there are suspicious circumstances regarding that event. There may well be, and it may warrant further investigation, but the event itself is not a priori evidence of subterfuge. That's because sometimes mistakes DO happen.

PS...I ignore your repeated "challenges" regarding my

"photoshopping" images because they are meaningless. Though I own the PhotoShop program, I hardly ever use it and have never used it in my Apollo studies.

Let me just quote from your study, Jack, just to remind you again:

Using Photoshop magic wand, this object was selected and tone changed

The Photoshop ® Magic Wand enhancement made this image seem to be a twin-boom wrecker instead of a pickup truck

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/12wreckercomp.jpg

So which is correct? Your statement on the Forum, or your Aulis study? One of them is wrong. I'm going for your study being correct; why otherwise capitalise the name (Photoshop versus photoshop)? Why use the Registered Trade Mark symbol? Why refer to the Magic Wand?

PS...I ignore your repeated "challenges" regarding my

"photoshopping" images because they are meaningless. Though I own the PhotoShop program, I hardly ever use it and have never used it in my Apollo studies. All of my chroma pseudocolor studies are easily replicated by anyone with ANY good graphics program; get anyone you want to replicate them. All they have to do is change COLOR LEVELS for RGB and the computer finds the anomalies without ANY help.

Ah ha! HB'ers Card No4: Misdirection. Jack, you state - IN YOUR VERY OWN STUDY - that you used Photoshop. You even capitalised it... and this is the study I am talking about. Not other studies where you may or may not have used Photoshop - but this study, and the one which I have repeatedly offered the challenge to you, and which you repeatedly ignore.

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/12wreckercomp.jpg

Don't bother changing it - the Wayback machine has a copy, and so do I. You specifically stated you used Photoshop.

Edited to add: please use the link, and take a copy of the claim Jack has made about the wrecker. prove it for yourself that I am not making an inaccurate quote about what Jack has said.