Jack White and David Percy....

[Duane Daman]

dupe post

Edited September 25, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

The person I sent my analysis to was Jarrah White , not David Percy .... Nothing was done in "hiding" as you put it .. In fact , Jarrah was nice enough to make a couple of YouTube videos showing different buildings perspectives for me and then he did his own analysis on the anomalous perspective of the A17 mountains ... but after the witch hunt against him here , started by you and Dave, and your typical obnoxious character assassination of him and his work , I decided to spare him the extra abuse , dropped the study and decided not to post it here .

So now you know the whole story .

Unlike you , I didn't run to my pals to get confirmation and back slaps of my work ... I sent the A17 photos to one of the top conspiracy researchers instead and now it's part of his Apollo investigation on his famous web site .

[Dave Greer]

The person I sent my analysis to was Jarrah White , not David Percy .... Nothing was done in "hiding" as you put it .. In fact , Jarrah was nice enough to make a couple of YouTube videos showing different buildings perspectives for me and then he did his own analysis on the anomalous perspective of the A17 mountains ... but after the witch hunt against him here , started by you and Dave

Duane - it was Jarrah's lack of knowledge of how film format as well as focal length affect field of view that was laid to bare. You can't blame me for his ignorance on a topic he claims to know so much about. That pretty much trounced an entire film he'd put on Youtube. As for who started what witch hunt - do I really have to remind you of the email debacle?

Unlike you , I didn't run to my pals to get confirmation and back slaps of my work ... I sent the A17 photos to one of the top conspiracy researchers instead and now it's part of his Apollo investigation on his famous web site .

Why you have a problem with someone else getting confirmation about the veracity of their work is a mystery. Didn't you send some stuff to Percy to look at? And now you've sent some to Jarrah White? Why is it OK for you to have your peers check your findings, but not Craig?

[Duane Daman]

First of all I will never forget the e-mail debacle, as that was one of the strangest games you ever played on any forum ... Attacking Jarrah here and on YouTube had little to do with your accusation of him lacking in photographic knowledge and everything to do with him exposing your game of contacting his source to hopefully get her to turn on him , plus character assassination of him because of his role in exposing the Apollo hoax ... What took place here was just a carry over from the dispicable nonsense that takes place on the Apollo Hoax forum you belong to .

My sending an analysis off to a friend in private is not the same thing as parading my work on an open forum in hopes of receiving compliments ... All narcissistic craig cares about is people praising him for his photography ... But maybe it's a good thing that he at least can take pretty pictures , cuz I doubt he's good for much else ... Except being a jerk on discussion forums maybe .

[Craig Lamson]

First of all I will never forget the e-mail debacle, as that was one of the strangest games you ever played on any forum ... Attacking Jarrah here and on YouTube had little to do with your accusation of him lacking in photographic knowledge and everything to do with him exposing your game of contacting his source to hopefully get her to turn on him , plus character assassination of him because of his role in exposing the Apollo hoax ... What took place here was just a carry over from the dispicable nonsense that takes place on the Apollo Hoax forum you belong to .

My sending an analysis off to a friend in private is not the same thing as parading my work on an open forum in hopes of receiving compliments ... All narcissistic craig cares about is people praising him for his photography ... But maybe it's a good thing that he at least can take pretty pictures , cuz I doubt he's good for much else ... Except being a jerk on discussion forums maybe .

Jeez Duane, did you actully READ the entire thread on Apollohoax? I got one attaboy and quite a few posts correcting my piss poor writing skills. And I had a techniical error with the angle of view of the Haselblad lens. I got what I asked for, which was a few new sets of eyes reviewing my data and my writing. And I did it in the light of day, and everyone got to see my work from day one, warts and all. Can you say the same about your work?

[Dave Greer]

First of all I will never forget the e-mail debacle, as that was one of the strangest games you ever played on any forum ... Attacking Jarrah here and on YouTube had little to do with your accusation of him lacking in photographic knowledge and everything to do with him exposing your game of contacting his source to hopefully get her to turn on him , plus character assassination of him because of his role in exposing the Apollo hoax ... What took place here was just a carry over from the dispicable nonsense that takes place on the Apollo Hoax forum you belong to .

Duane - YOU started the email debacle so don't try to rewrite history! Best left in the past - for the sake of everyone's sanity. You can remind yourself of what actually happened by reading the appropriate thread if you must.

My sending an analysis off to a friend in private is not the same thing as parading my work on an open forum in hopes of receiving compliments ... All narcissistic craig cares about is people praising him for his photography ... But maybe it's a good thing that he at least can take pretty pictures , cuz I doubt he's good for much else ... Except being a jerk on discussion forums maybe .

Duane, you've been "parading your work on public forums" for years, if you really want to characterise it that way! It's quite obvious he was having it checked for accuracy and typos before he posted it here in response to Jack's Apollo study.

Or is all this a distraction tactic to disguise the fact that you can't address the evidence itself?

OK, so your "Think tank" have done a runner (no doubt they crunched the numbers and realised they were wrong!), but YOU YOURSELF have the ability to prove whether Jack or Craig is right about the offset shadow rule, regardless of whether you understand the explanation or not. Get that camera out, and take some photos. Examine your OWN evidence, which you know won't be doctored. See if it really is that hard to take the kind of photo Jack says is impossible. I managed it quite easily with a bog-standard point and click digital camera.

No more lame excuses, get that camera out and DO it!

[Duane Daman]

Yes , unfortunately I did read the entire thread and a few other threads there as well ... and it's always the same pile of gullible geeks accusing the conspiracy researchers of being idiots .

My "work" as you call it , is to help expose the Apollo hoax evidence , not obsessively character assassinate the same two conspiracy researchers repeatedly .... We all get the fact that you think every Apollo photo is genuine and taken on the Moon ... So the fact that Percy and White have proven otherwise , has now become quite a sick obsession for you ... Just the fact that you thought you could destroy the reputation of these two men by disagreeing with one of their studies shows what a delusional fool you really are .

[Duane Daman]

Ditto Dave ... No more lame excuses ... Get out your camera and prove me wrong ...You won't because you can't .

My "think tank " bailed out on me , plain and simple ... The guy we were waiting for to provide the needed math , apparently decided it was more important to plan his wedding than to crunch numbers to disprove a bunch of misguided geeks on an Apollo hoax forum .

I learned my lesson to never promise anything that doesn't come directly from me , or to trust anyone's word that they will provide what I need to prove my side of an argument .

Edited September 26, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

My "work" as you call it , is to help expose the Apollo hoax evidence , not obsessively character assassinate the same two conspiracy researchers repeatedly .... We all get the fact that you think every Apollo photo is genuine and taken on the Moon ... So the fact that Percy and White have proven otherwise , has now become quite a sick obsession for you ... Just the fact that you thought you could destroy the reputation of these two men by disagreeing with one of their studies shows what a delusional fool you really are .

Duane - it's not that I disagree with their photographic studeis - they have been proven to be false, time and time again. In the small number of instances that I've seen where it's difficult to empirically disprove their claims, there are very plausible explanations that fit in perfectly with the Apollo record (for example, the Heiliginschein effect seen in many photos. I can't prove it's Heiligenschein, but it sure looks like it, and what I know of moon dust would make it a prime candidate for such an effect). Jack would have some credibility if he ever retracted any of his claims, which have been proven to be incorrect.

Take for example the following study, in which Jack claims there must have been a tripod used to take the photos.

Now compare Jack's study to the actual photos.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5867.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5868.jpg

You may remember, we discussed this about a year ago. You agreed that Jack was wrong about this study. Another Apollo CT I'm debating with on another forum (who is more convinced than you are that Apollo was a hoax), also agrees that Jack is wrong in this study. Anyone with eyes and a brain can open the links, look at the photos, and see that Jack is wrong with his claim that there must have been a tripod used to take the photos. Any chance of Jack withdrawing the study?

No.

THAT is why his reputation is soiled - not just because his studies are wrong, but because he won't withdraw them when they are shown by any objective standard to be blatantly incorrect.

And THAT is why I'll continue to investigate his Apollo claims. If I find them to be at fault, I'll show why. Blow me, if I he ever publishes one I agree with, I'll let you know. (Don't hold your breath now!)

[Craig Lamson]

Yes , unfortunately I did read the entire thread and a few other threads there as well ... and it's always the same pile of gullible geeks accusing the conspiracy researchers of being idiots .

My "work" as you call it , is to help expose the Apollo hoax evidence , not obsessively character assassinate the same two conspiracy researchers repeatedly .... We all get the fact that you think every Apollo photo is genuine and taken on the Moon ... So the fact that Percy and White have proven otherwise , has now become quite a sick obsession for you ... Just the fact that you thought you could destroy the reputation of these two men by disagreeing with one of their studies shows what a delusional fool you really are .

Duane the reputations of both men have been gone for a long time. All my study has doen is simply highlight the lack of honesty and ability for both of them.

They are toast.

Oh, and I've not just disagreed with them, I've shown with unimpreachable empirical evidence that they are wrong.

I've shown that both are intellectually dishonest.

Honest men don't hide behind the walls of a forum, they debate in public.

Honest men admit it when they are in error.

Delusional is the perfect word to describe those who are foolish enough to believe either White or Percy.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

And THAT is why I'll continue to investigate his Apollo claims. If I find them to be at fault, I'll show why. Blow me, if I he ever publishes one I agree with, I'll let you know. (Don't hold your breath now!)

Thanks for the offer to blow you , but I think I'll pass ...

Leave it to you to post a study we discussed over a year ago ... You just reminded me that I have been doing this xxxx for way too long !

I agree that the line of sight is different in the two photos , but if you want me to believe that those studio perfect photos were really taken on the Moon , you will have to blow me !

I have posted studies of Jack's that can't be refuted , like the stagelight reflected in the A12 visor photo and the spotlight reflected in the A17 visor photo and you insisted both times that the stagelight reflections were only "smudges on the visor " .. So excuse me for not thinking too highly of your ability to be honest about Jack's studies , or the obvious anomalies in the faked Apollo photos .

[Jack White]

And THAT is why I'll continue to investigate his Apollo claims. If I find them to be at fault, I'll show why. Blow me, if I he ever publishes one I agree with, I'll let you know. (Don't hold your breath now!)

Thanks for the offer to blow you , but I think I'll pass ...

Leave it to you to post a study we discussed over a year ago ... You just reminded me that I have been doing this xxxx for way too long !

I agree that the line of sight is different in the two photos , but if you want me to believe that those studio perfect photos were really taken on the Moon , you will have to blow me !

I have posted studies of Jack's that can't be refuted , like the stagelight reflected in the A12 visor photo and the spotlight reflected in the A17 visor photo and you insisted both times that the stagelight reflections were only "smudges on the visor " .. So excuse me for not thinking too highly of your ability to be honest about Jack's studies , or the obvious anomalies in the faked Apollo photos .

Duane...you and I have it far easier than the defenders of the fake photos.

We can afford to be mistaken occasionally, and sometimes are...but the

fake-defenders MUST BE CORRECT A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TIME,

and you and I only need to be right ONE TIME. If they admit even one

Apollo photo is faked...THEY LOSE! That is why they get frantic when we

get close to the truth.

Jack

[Dave Greer]

Leave it to you to post a study we discussed over a year ago ... You just reminded me that I have been doing this xxxx for way too long !

Damn straight!

I agree that the line of sight is different in the two photos , but if you want me to believe that those studio perfect photos were really taken on the Moon , you will have to blow me !

I know you agree: but will get admit his error and get the offending study removed?

I have posted studies of Jack's that can't be refuted , like the stagelight reflected in the A12 visor photo and the spotlight reflected in the A17 visor photo and you insisted both times that the stagelight reflections were only "smudges on the visor " .. So excuse me for not thinking too highly of your ability to be honest about Jack's studies , or the obvious anomalies in the faked Apollo photos .

The A12 and A17 "visor" reflections were proven to be either smudges or scratches on the visor. This is very clear when you look at the relative position of the scratch at different angles in different photos - it stays the same! If it was a reflection, it would have moved!

For example, the A12 scratch is visible in 7 photos if I recall correctly. Here it is highlighted in two photos, taken on different EVAs, from slightly different angles!

Similarly with the A17 image. It was proven quite clearly to be either a smudge/scratch, by close inspection of the shape/location of the scratch and how it varied between images. Its position stayed the same despite different viewing angles - which indicates it is NOT a reflection (especially since all the other reflections on the visor DID change position, e.g. massifs, other astronaut).

THAT is what I call objective empirical analysis. Your canny knack for mistaking bunny rabbits for clouds and claiming victory doesn't impress anyone!

[Dave Greer]

Duane...you and I have it far easier than the defenders of the fake photos.

We can afford to be mistaken occasionally, and sometimes are...but the

fake-defenders MUST BE CORRECT A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TIME,

and you and I only need to be right ONE TIME. If they admit even one

Apollo photo is faked...THEY LOSE! That is why they get frantic when we

get close to the truth.

Jack

What's that Jack - did you admit you made a mistake? I look forward to whichever study you were referring to being withdrawn from Aulis! Do let us know which one it is.

[Duane Daman]

Leave it to you to post a study we discussed over a year ago ... You just reminded me that I have been doing this xxxx for way too long !

Damn straight!

I agree that the line of sight is different in the two photos , but if you want me to believe that those studio perfect photos were really taken on the Moon , you will have to blow me !

I know you agree: but will get admit his error and get the offending study removed?

I have posted studies of Jack's that can't be refuted , like the stagelight reflected in the A12 visor photo and the spotlight reflected in the A17 visor photo and you insisted both times that the stagelight reflections were only "smudges on the visor " .. So excuse me for not thinking too highly of your ability to be honest about Jack's studies , or the obvious anomalies in the faked Apollo photos .

The A12 and A17 "visor" reflections were proven to be either smudges or scratches on the visor. This is very clear when you look at the relative position of the scratch at different angles in different photos - it stays the same! If it was a reflection, it would have moved!

For example, the A12 scratch is visible in 7 photos if I recall correctly. Here it is highlighted in two photos, taken on different EVAs, from slightly different angles!

Similarly with the A17 image. It was proven quite clearly to be either a smudge/scratch, by close inspection of the shape/location of the scratch and how it varied between images. Its position stayed the same despite different viewing angles - which indicates it is NOT a reflection (especially since all the other reflections on the visor DID change position, e.g. massifs, other astronaut).

THAT is what I call objective empirical analysis. Your canny knack for mistaking bunny rabbits for clouds and claiming victory doesn't impress anyone!

Nice try Dave but that's not the photo I was referring to and that is not one of Jack's studies .

I would post the right one but it's late and I'm too tired to argue with you right now ... So I will post it tomorrow .... Then you can pretend it's just a "smudge on the visor !

Oh and by the way ... That object in the photo above is NOT a scratch on the visor ... It changes shape in the convex visor in different photos of the same scene , as the astronot changes his head position ... so it is clearly a REFLECTION OF AN ANOMALOUS OBJECT .... LIKE A STAGELIGHT !!!