Duane Daman Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Why are you asking my position about Jack's study ? ... According to you , I am completely "ignorant" about photography , so it obviously doesn't matter what I think . Here .... Now it's all fixed ! Thanks ginnie ! You are but the testing will at least show you have the ability to learn. And I would think you would want to know if your buddies were telling you the truth rather than just believing them out of hand. You just recently got burnt by St. Mark writing you a little fib in an email and you posting said email, only to have St. mark admit he was not honest. Why take that chance again? Why not just fiind out for yourself? What "fib" did Mike send me in an e-mail where he admitted to not being honest ? .... I admitted that he was mistaken about some of his hoax evidence , but I don't remember posting anything that stated he had been deliberately dishonest . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 2, 2008 Author Share Posted January 2, 2008 (edited) Why are you asking my position about Jack's study ? ... According to you , I am completely "ignorant" about photography , so it obviously doesn't matter what I think . Here .... Now it's all fixed ! Thanks ginnie ! You are but the testing will at least show you have the ability to learn. And I would think you would want to know if your buddies were telling you the truth rather than just believing them out of hand. You just recently got burnt by St. Mark writing you a little fib in an email and you posting said email, only to have St. mark admit he was not honest. Why take that chance again? Why not just fiind out for yourself? What "fib" did Mike send me in an e-mail where he admitted to not being honest ? .... I admitted that he was mistaken about some of his hoax evidence , but I don't remember posting anything that stated he had been deliberately dishonest . He told you he did not adjust the levels, contrast and sharpness of a couple of visor crops, and you posted the email stating such on this forum. After I said Iwas going to load the same software and see how it would output the files he posted a "new" version of one of the crops unaltered...thus admitting he had not told you the truth. The images are here: Altered... http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/Mi...134-20477HR.jpg Unaltered... http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/Mi...4-20477HR-1.jpg Added on edit: You missed some of my post again ... In your maniacal rush to be the last one who posts , you missed some more editing ... Which I do believe would qualify as a rebuttal . Lighten up Lamson ... You act as if your life depends on defending nasa's phony Apollo photography ... Or perhaps this is this your life ... How sad again . Well duane, SOMEONE altered the image st mark posted, and so far it looks like it was st mark. The images you posted are not at all similar to the ones st mark posted, and you might understand that if you had the first clue abou t waht you were looking at. st mark had the abiluty to post the images as published by the ALSJ or gateway, but he chose to post ALTERED images. Just a plain fact that you cannot overcome. I took NOTHING out of context. You ignorance betrays you once again. The alterations DID change the detail that contains the suns reflections. Just another one of those plain facts that are beyond your ability to comprehend. At this point I don't know why I even bother to reply to your untruthful accusations against me and my friends on this forum ... but I guess someone needs to expose your twisted little game for what it really is ... You will post any kind of dishonest nonsense just to try to make me look bad ... and for that , I really do feel sorry for you . Here's a PM I wrote to Mike this morning explaining your false accusations against him .. "Mike ... Lamson is claiming that you or I altered the contrast on the A17 photo showing the square shaped Sun . Here's his post to me . "Well duane, SOMEONE altered the image st mark posted, and so far it looks like it was st mark. The images you posted are not at all similar to the ones st mark posted, and you might understand that if you had the first clue abou t waht you were looking at. st mark had the abiluty to post the images as published by the ALSJ or gateway, but he chose to post ALTERED images. Just a plain fact that you cannot overcome. I took NOTHING out of context. You ignorance betrays you once again. The alterations DID change the detail that contains the suns reflections. Just another one of those plain facts that are beyond your ability to comprehend." I know you got it off of the ALSJ exactly as nasa put it there because I have the same dark images from the same series ... So if you could write me a PM explaining this , I will post it on the EF to show everyone that Lamson's claims are not true . Thanks ... Duane" ....................... Duane; That's true, I honestly altered nothing, either contrast or brightness-wise, in my simple Picasa crop of the Hi res' Hasselblad image as posted on the LSJ website; now featured on my Photobucket pages. cheers Mike" So I guess it comes down to who do people want to believe about this ... You , who are known for provoking your opponent with overly aggresive and nasty tactics , or Mike , who posted nasa's phony Apollo 17 image exactly as he found it on the ALSJ . St. Marks Falsehood...... Edited January 2, 2008 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 (edited) Why are you asking my position about Jack's study ? ... According to you , I am completely "ignorant" about photography , so it obviously doesn't matter what I think . Here .... Now it's all fixed ! Thanks ginnie ! You are but the testing will at least show you have the ability to learn. And I would think you would want to know if your buddies were telling you the truth rather than just believing them out of hand. You just recently got burnt by St. Mark writing you a little fib in an email and you posting said email, only to have St. mark admit he was not honest. Why take that chance again? Why not just fiind out for yourself? What "fib" did Mike send me in an e-mail where he admitted to not being honest ? .... I admitted that he was mistaken about some of his hoax evidence , but I don't remember posting anything that stated he had been deliberately dishonest . He told you he did not adjust the levels, contrast and sharpness of a couple of visor crops, and you posted the email stating such on this forum. After I said Iwas going to load the same software and see how it would output the files he posted a "new" version of one of the crops unaltered...thus admitting he had not told you the truth. The images are here: Altered... http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/Mi...134-20477HR.jpg Unaltered... http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/Mi...4-20477HR-1.jpg I'm sorry but have I missed the part where I posted where Mike admitted to being dishonest ? What you have posted here are the lightened versions that NOW appear on the ALSJ , that Mike has put on his PB page ... At some point NASA altered the contrast from an original much DARKER image , to a now much lighter OVEREXPOSED image .... So in what way does this prove that Mike was being "dishonest " ? And when do you plan on proving Mike wrong by posting photos of "square and spokeless"shaped Sun reflections in a convex surface ? ... I think he's still waiting for that evidence . Edited January 2, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 2, 2008 Author Share Posted January 2, 2008 Why are you asking my position about Jack's study ? ... According to you , I am completely "ignorant" about photography , so it obviously doesn't matter what I think . Here .... Now it's all fixed ! Thanks ginnie ! You are but the testing will at least show you have the ability to learn. And I would think you would want to know if your buddies were telling you the truth rather than just believing them out of hand. You just recently got burnt by St. Mark writing you a little fib in an email and you posting said email, only to have St. mark admit he was not honest. Why take that chance again? Why not just fiind out for yourself? What "fib" did Mike send me in an e-mail where he admitted to not being honest ? .... I admitted that he was mistaken about some of his hoax evidence , but I don't remember posting anything that stated he had been deliberately dishonest . He told you he did not adjust the levels, contrast and sharpness of a couple of visor crops, and you posted the email stating such on this forum. After I said Iwas going to load the same software and see how it would output the files he posted a "new" version of one of the crops unaltered...thus admitting he had not told you the truth. The images are here: Altered... http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/Mi...134-20477HR.jpg Unaltered... http://s160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/Mi...4-20477HR-1.jpg I'm sorry but have I missed the part where I posted where Mike admitted to being dishonest ? What you have posted here are the lightened versions that NOW appear on the ALSJ , that Mike has put on his PB page ... At some point NASA altered the contrast from an original much DARKER image , to a now much lighter OVEREXPOSED image .... So in what way does this prove that Mike was being "dishonest " ? And when do you plan on proving Mike wrong by posting photos of "square and spokeless"shaped Sun reflections in a convex surface ? ... I think he's still waiting for that evidence . No, St.Marks altered images match the current ALSJ images pixel for pixel, they are not some eariler version. The also MATCH perfectly to the current version being adjusted in Picasa. Mike altered the images. Then he lied about it...then he posted the unaltered versions after he got caught. Sorry but St.Mark is a xxxx. I've written him off Duane, he's just not honest. Why should I go to the trouble of debunking his ignorance when he can't even have an open or honest discussion in an open forum? The best he can do is censor the stuff on his Youtube pages...and that is about as dishonest as it comes. Whenever St. Mark comes out from hiding I'll be happy to debunk his dishonest work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 (edited) You are deliberately misrepresenting this situation ... Mike's current images in his photobucket account are a match for the CURRENT overexposed images in the ALSJ .... The image he posted to use in his original study were the same one's I had of a DARKER version of the same photo that NASA had posted on their ALSJ at an EARLIER DATE . That's not too difficult to understand , is it ? Mike has offered to debate you on his chanel page at YouTUbe ... He has neither the time or the interesnt in joining this forum , Windley's forum of CT abuse or any other forum that you and your pals set up . Where you "debunk" his "dishonest" work shouldn't matter, should it ? ... If you can debunk him , then do it here or on Apollo Hoax and then send him the links . It's looks like you're just stalling and blowing smoke because you can't "debunk" his evidence . Edited January 2, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 2, 2008 Author Share Posted January 2, 2008 You are deliberately misrepresenting this situation ... Mike's current images in his photobucket account are a match for the CURRENT overexposed images in the ALSJ .... The image he posted to use in his original study were the same one's I had of a DARKER version of the same photo that NASA had posted on their ALSJ at an EARLIER DATE .Yes, that's right, both his altered (darker, added contrast sharpening and jpg artifacted) file and his "overexposed' file are form the current ALSJ files. St. Mark made the alterations described and then lied to all of us about it. He oly added the "overexposed" image after he gat caught. I really don't care what he used an an "eariler study" the images I linked (as did you) were altered my St. Mark and are from thre current files. He lied to you Duane. That's not too difficult to understand , is it ? I understand completely...its you who appears to be in the dark. Mike has offered to debate you on his chanel page at YouTUbe ... He has neither the time or the interesnt in joining this forum , Windley's forum of CT abuse or any other forum that you and your pals set up . Oh sure he will "debate" at his youtube channel...problem is he censors the posts that destroy his work. St. MArk is simply not an honest broker and is afraid to argue in an open forum. I've offered to meet him anywhere that offers open debate. He has declined. He prefers to hide where he can control the debate. When he decides to debate like a real man, I'm ready. Start your own forum then Duane...lets get this faker out in the open where he can't hide from the truth. Where you "debunk" his "dishonest" work shouldn't matter, should it ? ... If you can debunk him , then do it here or on Apollo Hoax and then send him the links . What, 'send him the links"? Are you kidding? I'll post the work when he comes out of hiding. I have it ready. Is he man enough to defend his work where the entire world can see ALL of the evidence? I don't think so. It's looks like you're just stalling and blowing smoke because you can't "debunk" his evidence . Come on Duane, even you know his work is wrong. You have said so on this forum. I'm not the one stalling ...its St. Mark and his refusal to debate in the open ,,,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Post your evidence right here which proves that Mike has been dishonest about the contrast on those A17 photos and that a Sun reflection can have a square shape while reflected in a visor . It doesn't matter that he won't debate you on this forum if you really have the proof which proves him wrong .... Right ? ... Just post it . I don't knowif Mike altered the contrast on those A17 photos or not ... I am only going by the same A17 photo that I have had in my files for a couple of years now , where the image was originally UNDEREXPOSED and MUCH DARKER than what NASA currently has on their ALSJ web site now . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 2, 2008 Author Share Posted January 2, 2008 (edited) Post your evidence right here which proves that Mike has been dishonest about the contrast on those A17 photos and that a Sun reflection can have a square shape while reflected in a visor .I've posted the evidence of the altered photos..the links to his images. Check them yourself. As for the square reflections, I've already posted that here as well. That has been debunked ofr months. And you yourself have admitted that the light spokes are not a function of the lightsource and need not be present in all of the images. I've also posted evidence and the lightspokes are a function of the lens mechanics on this forum. I've more evidence if needed but the matter is really settled and St. Mark has lost. He's just not man enough to show his face in the open and take his defeat. It doesn't matter that he won't debate you on this forum if you really have the proof which proves him wrong .... Right ? ... Just post it . Sure it matters. I can expect you to be posting his rebuttals. If he wants to see the error of his ways her will need to do it himself, not hiding behind you. I don't know if Mike altered the contrast on those A17 photos or not ... I am only going by the same A17 photo that I have had in my files for a couple of years now , where the image was originally UNDEREXPOSED and MUCH DARKER than what NASA currently has on their ALSJ web site now . What was there is of no importance to this matter. He used WHAT IS THERE NOW and altered it. Edited January 2, 2008 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Post your evidence right here which proves that Mike has been dishonest about the contrast on those A17 photos and that a Sun reflection can have a square shape while reflected in a visor .It doesn't matter that he won't debate you on this forum if you really have the proof which proves him wrong .... Right ? ... Just post it . I don't knowif Mike altered the contrast on those A17 photos or not ... I am only going by the same A17 photo that I have had in my files for a couple of years now , where the image was originally UNDEREXPOSED and MUCH DARKER than what NASA currently has on their ALSJ web site now . Can you show us a copy of the file you've had "for a couple of years"? In its original state, no further alterations please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 (edited) Post your evidence right here which proves that Mike has been dishonest about the contrast on those A17 photos and that a Sun reflection can have a square shape while reflected in a visor .It doesn't matter that he won't debate you on this forum if you really have the proof which proves him wrong .... Right ? ... Just post it . I don't knowif Mike altered the contrast on those A17 photos or not ... I am only going by the same A17 photo that I have had in my files for a couple of years now , where the image was originally UNDEREXPOSED and MUCH DARKER than what NASA currently has on their ALSJ web site now . Can you show us a copy of the file you've had "for a couple of years"? In its original state, no further alterations please. I will be happy to post the original NASA A17 ALSJ flies here but it will have to wait until tomorrow when I can get to the store to buy a new computer mouse ... Mine has finally crapped out on me and the right click will no longer function . It must have gotten worn out from all the articles I have copy/pasted for these discussion forums ... Edited January 2, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 (edited) Post your evidence right here which proves that Mike has been dishonest about the contrast on those A17 photos and that a Sun reflection can have a square shape while reflected in a visor .It doesn't matter that he won't debate you on this forum if you really have the proof which proves him wrong .... Right ? ... Just post it . I don't knowif Mike altered the contrast on those A17 photos or not ... I am only going by the same A17 photo that I have had in my files for a couple of years now , where the image was originally UNDEREXPOSED and MUCH DARKER than what NASA currently has on their ALSJ web site now . Can you show us a copy of the file you've had "for a couple of years"? In its original state, no further alterations please. Here ya go Kevin .... Just the way NASA presented them on their ALSJ a couple of years ago ... DARK AND UNALTERED BY ME OR MIKE ST MARK !.... and just the way Gavin posted them as a present to me during one of our many rather heated discussions about Apollo . Edited January 4, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Stone Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 and just the way Gavin posted them as a present to me during one of our many rather heated discussions about Apollo I remember these, that does look like the kind of way I would label Apollo images. I can't vouch I have them at that brightness though. I could check but unfortunately my PC is down and I'm on my laptop at present. Will be getting a new PC delivered this week then I can restore all my files and I'll check then. I don't know what this argument is about but there does seem to be two different scans/photos in existence; for example: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...7/134/20478.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20478.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 and just the way Gavin posted them as a present to me during one of our many rather heated discussions about Apollo I remember these, that does look like the kind of way I would label Apollo images. I can't vouch I have them at that brightness though. I could check but unfortunately my PC is down and I'm on my laptop at present. Will be getting a new PC delivered this week then I can restore all my files and I'll check then. I don't know what this argument is about but there does seem to be two different scans/photos in existence; for example: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...7/134/20478.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20478.jpg That's exactly the way you sent them to me ... So if NASA didn't alter the contrast on them , then you did ... because I didn't . The discussion has to do with Craig accusing either me or Mike St Mark of altering the contrast on these A17 photos , for some strange reason ... It's just a red herring that he has tossed out here , because the contrast (whether lighter or darker ), still does not alter the fact that the "Sun" reflected in the visor looks more like a squared off stagelight than it does the real Sun . Lamson was suggesting that Mike was somehow "lying" or being deceptive by presenting one of NASA's darker versions on his photobucket page , that I posted on this thead as hoax evidence ... It's true that the darker contrast does enhance this particular anomaly , but that is hardly the point . Thanks for posting both of NASA's versions ... It looks as though they once again altered some of their Apollo photos to suit their own self serving agenda . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 and just the way Gavin posted them as a present to me during one of our many rather heated discussions about Apollo I remember these, that does look like the kind of way I would label Apollo images. I can't vouch I have them at that brightness though. I could check but unfortunately my PC is down and I'm on my laptop at present. Will be getting a new PC delivered this week then I can restore all my files and I'll check then. I don't know what this argument is about but there does seem to be two different scans/photos in existence; for example: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...7/134/20478.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20478.jpg That's exactly the way you sent them to me ... So if NASA didn't alter the contrast on them , then you did ... because I didn't . The discussion has to do with Craig accusing either me or Mike St Mark of altering the contrast on these A17 photos , for some strange reason ... It's just a red herring that he has tossed out here , because the contrast (whether lighter or darker ), still does not alter the fact that the "Sun" reflected in the visor looks more like a squared off stagelight than it does the real Sun . Lamson was suggesting that Mike was somehow "lying" or being deceptive by presenting one of NASA's darker versions on his photobucket page , that I posted on this thead as hoax evidence ... It's true that the darker contrast does enhance this particular anomaly , but that is hardly the point . Thanks for posting both of NASA's versions ... It looks as though they once again altered some of their Apollo photos to suit their own self serving agenda . Sorry Duane, none of these images match the altered ones posted by St. Mark. His DO however match the current images at ALSJ. So yes, he lied to you and then you passed on his lie to the forum. Bad Duane...bad.... Don't you feel a little silly pimping for guys who lie to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Don't you feel a little silly pimping for guys who lie to you? Projection again ? .. How silly of you to use this type of tactic again . You pimp for the liars at NASA who (as we have now seen ) were the ones who altered the contrast in the A17 photos from the original darker versions, to the current lighter versions . Even if Mike did darken the A17 photos to bring out the square "Sun" reflection , that is no different from what you or Dave or Jack have done in your studies, when you want to enhance a certain aspect of a photograph ... It's not altering the image , it's only enhancing the point you want to make .... So the only reason that you're making a big deal out of the contrast being a bit darker is because you have nothing else . You said that you had already created your own pictures of a square Sun reflection in a visor to prove Mike's evidence wrong ... but we have yet to see them posted here on even on Apollo Hoax ... So where are they ? ... You're not being shy about your work all of a sudden , are you "MrPhotoGod " ? 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