Craig Lamson Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 I don't believe for one minute that Jack has "mis-used" photoshop in proving that the Apollo photography was faked . And then, one of my all time favorites, which Duane 'believed"...no mis-use of photoshop here. ROFLMAO! Jack does a "chroma adjustment and subtracts the blue and yellow" FROM A BLACK AND WHITE IMAGE! This one is a classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 (edited) Let the games continue ! Edited October 6, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 I don't believe for one minute that Jack has "mis-used" photoshop in proving that the Apollo photography was faked . And then, one of my all time favorites, which Duane 'believed"...no mis-use of photoshop here. ROFLMAO! Jack does a "chroma adjustment and subtracts the blue and yellow" FROM A BLACK AND WHITE IMAGE! This one is a classic. Lamson is showing his ignorance of CRTs...cathode ray tubes...like a computer screen or TV screen. All CRT images WHETHER B/W OR COLOR, are made up of RGB pixels (red green blue). He says that Jack errs by color analysis of a BW computer image...BUT HE IS WRONG. All computer images are RGB...whether the original is BW or color, so can be broken down to RGB in my chroma studies. A b/w scan can be separated into RGB by a simple SAVE AS MILLIONS OF RGB COLORS, and then adjusting the chroma scale for each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I don't believe for one minute that Jack has "mis-used" photoshop in proving that the Apollo photography was faked .I guess the bottom line is that I trust Jack and I don't trust you , when it comes to this subject . Jack has gotten confirmation from other professionals that his work is valid and that is proof enough for me and millions of other people as well .. But the "professionals" who support Jack's conclusions (and there are not that many of them) are NOT professionals when it comes to the specific studies under discussion - ones where jack has used Photoshop to 'reveal' something. You don't trust me? Fine. You trust Jack? Fine. Then how about we ask an expert if his work is valid or not? Someone who has no interest in the Apollo debate? Someone who is highly skilled in the use - and limitations - of Photoshop? Would that not be a prudent move? You'd then be able to - if successful - be able to point to independent evidence as to the validity of Jack's conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 (edited) I don't believe for one minute that Jack has "mis-used" photoshop in proving that the Apollo photography was faked . And then, one of my all time favorites, which Duane 'believed"...no mis-use of photoshop here. ROFLMAO! Jack does a "chroma adjustment and subtracts the blue and yellow" FROM A BLACK AND WHITE IMAGE! This one is a classic. Lamson is showing his ignorance of CRTs...cathode ray tubes...like a computer screen or TV screen. All CRT images WHETHER B/W OR COLOR, are made up of RGB pixels (red green blue). He says that Jack errs by color analysis of a BW computer image...BUT HE IS WRONG. All computer images are RGB...whether the original is BW or color, so can be broken down to RGB in my chroma studies. A b/w scan can be separated into RGB by a simple SAVE AS MILLIONS OF RGB COLORS, and then adjusting the chroma scale for each. What a joke. In a grayscale image, THERE ARE NO COLOR LAYERS. The original in the case was a grayscale image. You open it up in Photoshop or any other image editing program and there are NO COLOR LAYERES. Creating them in Photopshop is simple creates FALSE COLOR LAYERS. How can you analyse the color layers of an image when they were CREATED BY YOU, and not by the actual image? The answer is that you can't. More ignorance by Jack WHite. And BTW Duane, next time you POST SOMETHING FOR JACK WHITE, and claim it as your own, make sure you change so IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR WORK! ROFLMAO! " so can be broken down to RGB in my chroma studies." Edited October 2, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but a true greyscale image will reveal exactly the same level of detail whether you show just the red, green or blue channels. Changing the input/output levels of one of these channels (EDIT: with the other 2 channels set to zero) is just the same as adjusting the brightness/contrast/gamma of the overall image. Incidentally, I don't think Jack has converted the image from greyscale to RGB anyway - I think he converted it to CYMK. Otherwise how did he remove the yellow and blue (cyan) as claimed? (EDIT: RGB has no yellow channel...) The image may look very pretty, but there's no extra information there that couldn't be revealed just by adjusting the levels in the greyscale image. All the image does show is what we knew was there all along: dust on the lens (and the flare it produces). There's good evidence for this in the reduced contrast in the rock shadows closer to the horizon, the fact that these dusty zones seem to be in the same regions photos whenever it's present, and the fact that it is present in photos where sunlight is striking the lens (rather than facing downsun). Edited October 3, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but a true greyscale image will reveal exactly the same level of detail whether you show just the red, green or blue channels. Changing the input/output levels of one of these channels (EDIT: with the other 2 channels set to zero) is just the same as adjusting the brightness/contrast/gamma of the overall image.Incidentally, I don't think Jack has converted the image from greyscale to RGB anyway - I think he converted it to CYMK. Otherwise how did he remove the yellow and blue (cyan) as claimed? (EDIT: RGB has no yellow channel...) The image may look very pretty, but there's no extra information there that couldn't be revealed just by adjusting the levels in the greyscale image. All the image does show is what we knew was there all along: dust on the lens (and the flare it produces). There's good evidence for this in the reduced contrast in the rock shadows closer to the horizon, the fact that these dusty zones seem to be in the same regions photos whenever it's present, and the fact that it is present in photos where sunlight is striking the lens (rather than facing downsun). Thats a very good point Dave, I skipped right over the blue/yelllow bit. I'm not really sure whot processs Jack has been using, other than its sure SOUNDS and LOOKS impressive, which I think was his entire point, results be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 More evidence supporting the "dust on lens" theory. Look at the other two photos immediately following the one in question. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9089.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9090.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9091.jpg Here's a GIF animation of the three. Notice how in the first two frames, the flare on the right hand side of the frame is clearly in the same location, despite the fact that the astronaut is obviously pointing in a slightly different direction as shown by the ground detail. Very unlikely indeed that the flare is caused by a light shining onto a background. In the third frame the flare has gone, as expected if this is caused by dust on the lens (sunlight is no longer directly striking the lens). If this was a reflection on a background caused by the superlight, this should still be visible. Here's a short study I did to examine the change in contrast between the three images. three crops showing the same area, with approximate measurements taken from several points within the same area of shadow. SUpports the "dust on lens theory" due to reduced contrast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 Your pretense of debunking everyone of Jack's studies is quite laughable . Your Apologist peers on BAUT , Apollo Hoax etc . are all watching the three of you ( Lamson , Burton and Greer ) "paste" ( I believe that was Burton's word for it ) Jack and Duane . Sorry boys but the jig is up and everyone on this forum now knows what you guys are really all about . You can play all the games you want to about the "mis-use of photoshop "... and about every anomaly in the faked Apollo photos being "lens flare" , "smudges on visors" , "scratches on visors ", "dirt on the camera lens" and so on ... but all of your nonsense has now been rendered MOOT by this Apollo 14 photo of Alan Shepard allegedly standing on the Moon , when his visor reflection clearly shows a SPOTLIGHT REFLECTION in the shape of a barn door attachment . I couldn't help but notice how you boys have completely IGNORED my new topic here called "ONE GIANT SPOTLIGHT FOR ALL MANKIND" . Is NASA's think tank working feverishly on how to PRETEND to debunk this one ? ... Or did you perhps just hope it would disappear ? Look at this photograph closely and then keep pretending among yourselves that the Apollo photography was really taken on the Moon . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 (edited) Your pretense of debunking everyone of Jack's studies is quite laughable .Your Apologist peers on BAUT , Apollo Hoax etc . are all watching the three of you ( Lamson , Burton and Greer ) "paste" ( I believe that was Burton's word for it ) Jack and Duane . Sorry boys but the jig is up and everyone on this forum now knows what you guys are really all about . You can play all the games you want to about the "mis-use of photoshop "... and about every anomaly in the faked Apollo photos being "lens flare" , "smudges on visors" , "scratches on visors ", "dirt on the camera lens" and so on ... but all of your nonsense has now been rendered MOOT by this Apollo 14 photo of Alan Shepard allegedly standing on the Moon , when his visor reflection clearly shows a SPOTLIGHT REFLECTION in the shape of a barn door attachment . I couldn't help but notice how you boys have completely IGNORED my new topic here called "ONE GIANT SPOTLIGHT FOR ALL MANKIND" . Is NASA's think tank working feverishly on how to PRETEND to debunk this one ? ... Or did you perhps just hope it would disappear ? Look at this photograph closely and then keep pretending among yourselves that the Apollo photography was really taken on the Moon . Wow! At it again I see. NO Think TanK needed for this one either Duane, just an "AH" moment about some basics of photography. I'll get to a formal rebuttal soon, complete with EMPIRICAL evidence (you know that stuff you or Jack can't seem to provide). In the meantime riddle this. WHY is the "starburst effect" connnected to the LENS properties, and not the type of light? Edited October 3, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 See this thread for your reply . 'ONE GIANT SPOTLIGHT FOR ALL MANKIND ' http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11139 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 More evidence supporting the "dust on lens" theory.Look at the other two photos immediately following the one in question. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9089.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9090.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-64-9091.jpg Here's a GIF animation of the three. Notice how in the first two frames, the flare on the right hand side of the frame is clearly in the same location, despite the fact that the astronaut is obviously pointing in a slightly different direction as shown by the ground detail. Very unlikely indeed that the flare is caused by a light shining onto a background. In the third frame the flare has gone, as expected if this is caused by dust on the lens (sunlight is no longer directly striking the lens). If this was a reflection on a background caused by the superlight, this should still be visible. Here's a short study I did to examine the change in contrast between the three images. three crops showing the same area, with approximate measurements taken from several points within the same area of shadow. SUpports the "dust on lens theory" due to reduced contrast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 [http]http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l12/straydog_02/a14comp.jpg[/http] 1. He does not explain why in consecutive exposures dust on the lens affects some exposures and not others. I went out of my way to explain this, Jackie old boy. The dust on the lens is visible when sunlight strikes the lens. All downsun shots don't show it. As for the rest of Jack's "rebuttal", what has it got to do with the original study? Nothing I'm afraid. It's a red herring tactic. Jack - instead of trying to change the subject, please do try and stay on topic. Just so the casual viewer knows why you are wrong in this latest study, here's my reply. You've quite clearly highlighted the wrong features. I'm sure this wasn't a deliberate error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 4, 2007 Author Share Posted October 4, 2007 (edited) I'm not sure why Jack wants to continue replying to Geer's nonsense but he told me that his dishonest crap needs to be rebutted . What he doesn't know is that Greer will NEVER back down and that his Apollo games have not so much to do with the truth , but are only played to PRETEND to win the argument . Jack's rebuttal . Edited October 4, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 The 3 circled in the lower half of those pictures are not the same. The rock you circled in light green in the left pic is the same rock in white in the right pic. 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