Craig Lamson Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Dave you know you have Duane and Jack on the ropes when they resort to the distraction tactic. They have no counter arguments. I think Duane was just having a little leg-pull and a rib-tickle. I do agree that there hasn't been much forthcoming in the way of a counter-argument though. Maybe it's being looked at by the good people at Aulis, or perhaps Duane's think-tank? Why? Duane says he can think for himself and that he understands the subject matter at hand and yet he has offered no constructive comments. If he has such a grasp of the material surely he can comment without resorting to his think tank. Instead we get his distraction posts... Very telling indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Jack has made the assumption that both astronauts are stood on level ground and are of the same height. However, both astronauts are inside Sharp Crater when the photo was taken - the astronaut taking the photo is simply further up the slope. Where is the proof that the astronot , allegedly taking this photo, was on higher ground ? .. The " Sharp Crater" link you provided mentioned nothing about a slope . I don't need to prove that he is on higher ground. Sorry to harp on about it again, but the burden of proof lies with someone alleging that this photo is faked to prove it. That's what I thought ... Thanks for your typical Apollo apologist reply . But hey , let's not have any hard feeling ok ? ... I think we should all help out you and Evan with your trip to the Moon project ! Here's an idea I had about the design . .. I know it's not very practical , as it only allows for one geek to fly to the Moon at a time , so maybe you can tweak it a tad to get all four of you oboard ! ..."Phunkytowel "wants to go now too !! Up up and away in my new Moon mobile !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Jack has made the assumption that both astronauts are stood on level ground and are of the same height. However, both astronauts are inside Sharp Crater when the photo was taken - the astronaut taking the photo is simply further up the slope. Where is the proof that the astronot , allegedly taking this photo, was on higher ground ? .. The " Sharp Crater" link you provided mentioned nothing about a slope . I don't need to prove that he is on higher ground. Sorry to harp on about it again, but the burden of proof lies with someone alleging that this photo is faked to prove it. That's what I thought ... Thanks for your typical Apollo apologist reply . Well, it happens to be true old boy! Where is the proof that this photo was not taken on the moon? You have none I'm afraid. But hey , let's not have any hard feeling ok ? ... I think we should all help out you and Evan with your trip to the Moon project ! None taken, and thanks for all the gifts. (You're not of Greek descent by any chance?) Now, that lightsource. Agree with Jack, or agree with me? Reasons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 (edited) Hey Dave ... Since Kevin ( aka: "phunk", aka : "phunkytowel" ) wants to go along with you and Evan and Jack on your google Moon challenge trip into the cosmic void of deep space , he is gonna need a very kewl astronot space costume too . So I found this one for the "phunkster" , to keep him safe in all that deadly radiation .... I sure hope he likes it ! Who knew that nasa bought all their Apollo Moon stuff on Ebay !?! * Edited to add .... Oh sorry , I got so excited about "phunky's" new suit that I forgot to answer your question .... I agree with Jack ... The Apollo photographs showing astronots are studio fakes , regardless of where the spotlight "Sun" was placed .. Edited September 18, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Hey Dave ... Since Kevin ( aka: "phunk", aka : "phunkytowel" ) wants to go along with you and Evan and Jack on your google Moon challenge trip into the cosmic void of deep space , he is gonna need a very kewl astronot space costume too .So I found this one for the "phunkster" , to keep him safe in all that deadly radiation .... I sure hope he likes it ! Nice suit. * Edited to add .... Oh sorry , I got so excited about "phunky's" new suit that I forgot to answer your question .... I agree with Jack ... The Apollo photographs showing astronots are studio fakes , regardless of where the spotlight "Sun" was placed .. Ah, I wasn't asking whether you thought the photo was faked or not, I'm aware you think it faked. The question is, do you agree with the detail of Jack's analysis: specifically, has he got the position of the light source right, or have I? Reasons for your answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 I already answered your question .. I really don't care where the stagehands and technitions placed the Apollo spotlight on the set . So how about answering my question now ? ... Where is your proof that the alleged astronot photographer was standing on higher ground, or to use your words , on a slope , when that photo was taken ? ... I thought that you never posted evidence that you couldn't back up with empiricle proof ... Even if only in your own mind .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 I already answered your question .. I really don't care where the stagehands and technitions placed the Apollo spotlight on the set . Translation....Thats a tough question and I just don't know enough to answer, so I'll fade away.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 I already answered your question .. I really don't care where the stagehands and technitions placed the Apollo spotlight on the set .So how about answering my question now ? ... Where is your proof that the alleged astronot photographer was standing on higher ground, or to use your words , on a slope , when that photo was taken ? ... I thought that you never posted evidence that you couldn't back up with empiricle proof ... Even if only in your own mind .. Come on Duane old bean! The evidence is in the photo itself! The fact that you can see the top of the astronaut's helmet is evidence that the camera is higher, hence the astronaut taking the photo is higher! They're in a crater, so either the astronaut taking the picture is higher up the slope, or the other astronaut is bending down slightly. If Jack or yourself wants to believe this is because someone decided to use a tripod, knock yourself out, but it's purely based on faith and not empirical evidence. You don't care where the light source is? You don't care about actually studying the evidence? Yet you blindly claim that Jack White and David Percy have proved that the photos are fakes? What if they are wrong? Shouldn't you be holding them to the same kind of critical standards that you hold APollo evidence to? Jack is wrong in this study, deep down I think you KNOW he's wrong about the direction of the light source which is why you're trying to wriggle out of answering. You'd have far more credibility if you acknowledged he made an error with this study, but still support most of his studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 I already answered your question .. I really don't care where the stagehands and technitions placed the Apollo spotlight on the set .So how about answering my question now ? ... Where is your proof that the alleged astronot photographer was standing on higher ground, or to use your words , on a slope , when that photo was taken ? ... I thought that you never posted evidence that you couldn't back up with empiricle proof ... Even if only in your own mind .. Come on Duane old bean! The evidence is in the photo itself! The fact that you can see the top of the astronaut's helmet is evidence that the camera is higher, hence the astronaut taking the photo is higher! They're in a crater, so either the astronaut taking the picture is higher up the slope, or the other astronaut is bending down slightly. If Jack or yourself wants to believe this is because someone decided to use a tripod, knock yourself out, but it's purely based on faith and not empirical evidence. You don't care where the light source is? You don't care about actually studying the evidence? Yet you blindly claim that Jack White and David Percy have proved that the photos are fakes? What if they are wrong? Shouldn't you be holding them to the same kind of critical standards that you hold APollo evidence to? Jack is wrong in this study, deep down I think you KNOW he's wrong about the direction of the light source which is why you're trying to wriggle out of answering. You'd have far more credibility if you acknowledged he made an error with this study, but still support most of his studies. Yes, I already knew that the camera was higher than the subject being photographed ... Jack already mentioned that , thank you ... What I wanted to know was why was it higher ?... Your answer was that it was because the astronot taking the picture was standing on a slope , but you still haven't provided any proof that the photographer was standing on a slope , or that the reflection in the visor was the real photographer . My opinion as to where the light source is coming from in this photograph doesn't matter in the slightest ... You just want me to disagree with Jack about this in some respect ( any respect ) to make it look like you are right and he is wrong and I don't have a clue , or are just defending him because we have the same beliefs about Apollo .... Well, I 'm very sorry , but I'm really not interested in playing this silly game of yours and Lamson's . Don't ever presume to know what I'm thinking , or what I believe about this study or any other study of Jack's ... I have already stated that I don't always agree with Jack White or David Percy about every single piece of evidence they produce , but that doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean that I disagee with their position about the official Apollo photographic record ... I have no doubt whatsoever that the Apollo photographs were faked on Lunar sets right here on Earth , and done so in many different ways . But if it makes you and Lamson feel better to believe that I'm completely ignornant about photography, or that I have been duped by these two gentlemen in some respect , then by all means , go ahead and believe it . So with that said ... Let's have some fun ! Wadda ya say ?? Craig ... I have saved the best for last , and just for you my dear chum ! .... Here is your very own LAND ON THE MOON GAME !!! ... How kewl is that !?! The whole family can play too ! ... Or of you don't have a big family , then invite your many friends over to join in on the fun ... Or if you don't have any friends ( I just can't imagine that though ) , then you can play all by yourself with your imaginary Apollo astronot buddies ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Yes, I already knew that the camera was higher than the subject being photographed ... Jack already mentioned that , thank you ... What I wanted to know was why was it higher ?... Your answer was that it was because the astronot taking the picture was standing on a slope , but you still haven't provided any proof that the photographer was standing on a slope , or that the reflection in the visor was the real photographer . The wheel of fortune, round it goes! The way this works is, Jack (or anyone trying to show this aspect of the photo was faked) has to prove that the astronaut taking the photo could not possibly have been higher than the one in the photo. Since they are in a crater (whether that crater be on the moon or the earth), it doesn't take a Harvard genius to realise that a likely explanation is that he is simply slightly more elevated. Jack can't just say "Tripod!" and then claim victory, he needs to eliminate the other plausible explanations. Since there is plenty of evidence supporting the crater hypothesis (transcripts, other photos, reflection in visor), and none supporting the tripod theory, the sensible option is to go with the crater theory, regardless of your opinion on whether this photo was taken on the moon or on a soundstage. My opinion as to where the light source is coming from in this photograph doesn't matter in the slightest ... You just want me to disagree with Jack about this in some respect ( any respect ) to make it look like you are right and he is wrong and I don't have a clue , or are just defending him because we have the same beliefs about Apollo .... Well, I 'm very sorry , but I'm really not interested in playing this silly game of yours and Lamson's . Well either you agree with Jack or you don't. If you agree with him, fine explain why the position of the lightsource must be behind the astronaut's left shoulder. If you don't agree with him, have the balls to say so: I'm sure he'll still send you a Christmas card. If you really don't know, then fair enough. However, if you can't figure this one out, it should at least start ringing bells that maybe you're taking his other studies on faith, rather than understanding. No problem with that, but you can then hardly proclaim that he has proven the photographic record to be fake. This isn't a "mind game", it's pure logic. It may be uncomfortable, but I'd advise to skeptical approach in these matters. Have Jack's claims and mine and other's responses checked out by an independent professional photographer with no Apollo axe to grind either way. Remember, a lot of these things can be tested by yourself as well - nothing like your own empirical evidence that you know is correct. Don't ever presume to know what I'm thinking , or what I believe about this study or any other study of Jack's Duane, believe me, I haven't a CLUE what you're thinking most of the time! I'm entitled to an educated guess though I have already stated that I don't always agree with Jack White or David Percy about every single piece of evidence they produce , but that doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean that I disagee with their position about the official Apollo photographic record ... I have no doubt whatsoever that the Apollo photographs were faked on Lunar sets right here on Earth , and done so in many different ways . I'm well aware of your position on Apollo - that much has sunk in! But if it makes you and Lamson feel better to believe that I'm completely ignornant about photography, or that I have been duped by these two gentlemen in some respect , then by all means , go ahead and believe it . I don't know how much you know about photography, I just think that many of your interpretations of Apollo photos appear to be fundamentally flawed in many respects. I'm certain that you do believe the photos were faked, I just can't understand why you think that when so many of Jack's studies have been shown to be fundamentally flawed. Anyhoo... The reason we are having this discussion is that Jack doesn't seem to be here to defend his work against my rebuttal. Come on Jack, stop lurking and start defending your work! Do you agree you've misinterpreted the direction of the light-source in the photo in question? So with that said ... Let's have some fun ! Wadda ya say ?? Craig ... I have saved the best for last , and just for you my dear chum ! .... Here is your very own LAND ON THE MOON GAME !!! ... How kewl is that !?! The whole family can play too ! ... Or of you don't have a big family , then invite your many friends over to join in on the fun ... Or if you don't have any friends ( I just can't imagine that though ) , then you can play all by yourself with your imaginary Apollo astronot buddies ! I'm all for a bit of levity in these discussions: as long as it isn't used to deflect away from the discussion itself Stops things getting as heated as we both know from prior experience that Apollo forums can get. So go make yourself a nice cup of coffee in your new mug, old bean. 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