Jump to content
The Education Forum

One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind


Duane Daman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Okay , here's the bottom line .. again .

This faked Apollo 14 photograph has NOTHING to do with Mike ... It also has NOTHING to do with the motorcycle picture you posted here ....It also has NOTHING to do with the fact that I am not a professional photographer , whom you consider to be "ignorant" .

I posted this evidence here which is the PROOF that an artificial pentagonal shaped light source is reflected in the Apollo 14 visor ... The evidence I presented here shows that if the light source reflection had really been the Sun , as nasa pretended it was , it would have been ROUND , not PENTAGONAL or any other shape .

So instead of avoiding this evidence by pretending you have to discuss this with Mike , why don't you offer some evidence of your own to try to prove that my evidence is wrong , and that the real Sun could have caused that strange shaped light reflection in the Apollo 14 visor ?

I'm sure all your pals at Apollo Hoax and BAUT are waiting for a proper rebuttal from you instead of all these silly stalling tactics .

Or maybe you are stalling so they can help you invent some bogus rebuttal ? .... That would be my guess .

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 534
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay , here's the bottom line .. again .

This faked Apollo 14 photograph has NOTHING to do with Mike ... It also has NOTHING to do with the motorcycle picture you posted here ....It also has NOTHING to do with the fact that I am not a professional photographer , whom you consider to be "ignorant" .

I posted this evidence here and the PROOF that an artificial pentagonal shaped light source is reflected in the Apollo 14 visor ... The evidence I presented here shows that if the light source reflection had really been the Sun , as nasa pretended it was , it would have been ROUND , not PENTAGONAL or any other shape .

So instead of avoiding this evidence by pretending you have to discuss this with Mike , why don't you offer some evidence of your own to try to prove that my evidence is wrong , and that the real Sun could have caused that strange shaped light reflection in the Apollo 14 visor ?

I'm sure all your pals at Apollo Hoax and BAUT are waiting for a proper rebuttal from you instead of all these silly stalling tactics .

Or maybe you are stalling so they can help you invent some bogus rebuttal ? .... That would be my guess .

Ok, here is the REAL bottom line. YOU have no evidence posted here. You have posted the work of another and you are likely going to argue it BY PROXY for St. Mark. I'm not interested in debating this with you because I don't think I'm going to be debating you. I THINK I'm going to be debating St. Mark, who is unable or unwilling to show himself in a threaded forum to discuss his conclusions. I'm here...Where is St. Mark?

YOU don't understand the subject so YOU can't offer informed personal opinion.

The only thing I'm avoiding is you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No , the only thing you are avoiding is this faked Apollo 14 photograph with it's pentagonal shaped , artificial light source , reflected in Shepard's visor .

Here is all the proof I need , that this is NOT the Sun creating this reflection .

A8au.jpg

Where is yours that it is ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the original nasa Apollo photograph of Alan Shepard , allegedy taken on the Moon during Apollo 14 ... It was the third photo taken of EVA 1 .

AS14-66-9231

AS14-66-9231HR.jpg

Jack did a study on the light source reflection in Shepard's visor , to show that there is no mistaking the shape of this reflection .

duanepentagonalimage.jpg

Since this was the third photo taken of EVA 1 , there was no time or reason for Shepard to have any "smudges " on his visor ... There was no reason for him to have any "scratches" on his visor ... There was no reason for him to have any "dust " on his visor .... Neither does this photo have any "lens flare" in it .

The photograph was taken showing the front part of Shepard's visor , and therefore the excuse of the light source being "distorted" for any reason can not be used either .

This photograph speaks for itself .... Comparing it to other photographs of the Sun's round reflection ( see the beginning of this study ) to photos of artificial studio lighting ( see the beginning of this study ) , it is obvious that the pentagonal shaped light source reflection in Shepard's visor is NOT a reflection of the Sun , but rather IS a reflection of an artificial light source .

If ONE Apollo photograph can be proven to be fake , then the entire official Apollo photographic record has to be called into questions as to it's authenticity .

* edited to correct first image

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The shape of the aperture determines the shape of difrraction patterns, and is most visible in unsharp parts, where the peculiarities/regularity of the shapes can cause visible patterns (like double contours).

Apart from that, bright, specular highlights often appear 'aperture-shaped'.

Aperture shapes are unavoidable, and, though perhaps the least disturbing when seen, a circle is a shape like any other.

Though pentagonal highlights might seem unnatural (and they are), round ones are that too (which is most obvious when produced by a mirror lens, when they have a dark bit in the middle)."

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FOVB

Guess what lens has 5-bladed (pentagonal) aperture leafs? Why the Hasselblad 60mm lens used on the moon of course.

Bye Bye St. Mark....

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The shape of the aperture determines the shape of difrraction patterns, and is most visible in unsharp parts, where the peculiarities/regularity of the shapes can cause visible patterns (like double contours).

Apart from that, bright, specular highlights often appear 'aperture-shaped'.

Aperture shapes are unavoidable, and, though perhaps the least disturbing when seen, a circle is a shape like any other.

Though pentagonal highlights might seem unnatural (and they are), round ones are that too (which is most obvious when produced by a mirror lens, when they have a dark bit in the middle)."

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FOVB

Guess what lens has 5-bladed (pentagonal) aperture leafs? Why the Hasselblad 60mm lens used onthe moon of course.

Bye Bye St. Mark....

I knew that you were going to use the shape of the Hassie apertures as your excuse for why the Apollo 'Sun' had such a strange shape to it ... It was all you had to go with and just a matter of time .

But your reasoning here doesn't make any sense at all .... If the shape of the camera aperture created that light source shape on the visor , then ALL the Apollo photos showing a reflected light source would look like that , as they ALL used the same type of camera with the same type of aperture ..

Nice try but no cigar ... Is that really the best your buddies on BAUT and Apollo Hoax could come up with ?

Mike is out of town for the weekend , but I will be sure to send him your pretense of a rebuttal to see what he has to say about this latest nonsense .

So I wouldn't say "Bye bye " so quickly if I were you .

* edited to correct a word

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't look like AS14-66-9231 or any part of it that immediately comes to mind.

Are you sure you haven't mixed up your images?

That's the one you are asking about in another thread, and which you say (or rather Jack says) the catalogue number was unavailable at the time.

Edited by Evan Burton
Corrected "available" to "unavailable"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't look like AS14-66-9231 or any part of it that immediately comes to mind.

Are you sure you haven't mixed up your images?

That's the one you are asking about in another thread, and which you say (or rather Jack says) the catalogue number was available at the time.

I photo of Al Shepard is fixed .... I didn't "mix up the images" ... but somebody else sure did .

You didn't by any chance "fix" that image for me , did you Evan ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't look like AS14-66-9231 or any part of it that immediately comes to mind.

Are you sure you haven't mixed up your images?

That's the one you are asking about in another thread, and which you say (or rather Jack says) the catalogue number was unavailable at the time.

I photo of Al Shepard is fixed .... I didn't "mix up the images" ... but somebody else sure did .

You didn't by any chance "fix" that image for me , did you Evan ?

Your accusation is noted. Formal warning Duane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just sent you a PM asking you to please not alter my posts ... I also asked you since you are on the forum , why you don't allow my other posts to be submitted now on the other Apollo threads ?

It looks like there might be a reason you don't want to submit my other posts .... So why are you issuing me a formal warning when I have done nothing wrong ? ... I know for a fact what image I put in my post ... It was the Alan Shepard photo from the Apollo Image Gallery , not the study I put here yesterday for Jack .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just sent you a PM asking you to please not alter my posts ... I also asked you since you are on the forum , why you don't allow my other posts to be submitted now on the other Apollo threads ?

It looks like there might be a reason you don't want to submit my other posts .... So why are you issuing me a formal warning when I have done nothing wrong ? ... I know for a fact what image I put in my post ... It was the Alan Shepard photo from the Apollo Image Gallery , not the study I put here yesterday for Jack .

Once more:

1. I have not altered or edited your posts in any way.

2. I am not unduly holding up your posts; in fact I am attending to them as fast as I can. The only posts I am not touching are posts made by Jack. I have stated I will refrain from moderating his posts (that includes approving them) and I am adhering to that undertaking.

3. I brought to your attention the fact that the image did not match the description. That's all. The security logs will show I did NOT alter the post in any way. I'd suggest you made an error in the original post. Easy to do, and we can all make mistakes.

4. You are being formally warned because of your unfounded public accusations - such as another one in the quoted post ("It looks like there might be a reason you don't want to submit my other posts..."). These accusations are a form of abuse or harassment. If you have claims of such a serious nature, bring them to the attention of John or Andy as soon as possible. DO NOT MAKE PUBLIC ACCUSATIONS OF WRONGDOING AGAINST A FORUM MEMBER.

I would ask John or Andy to - once again - publicly confirm that I have not altered Duane's posts / images in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The shape of the aperture determines the shape of difrraction patterns, and is most visible in unsharp parts, where the peculiarities/regularity of the shapes can cause visible patterns (like double contours).

Apart from that, bright, specular highlights often appear 'aperture-shaped'.

Aperture shapes are unavoidable, and, though perhaps the least disturbing when seen, a circle is a shape like any other.

Though pentagonal highlights might seem unnatural (and they are), round ones are that too (which is most obvious when produced by a mirror lens, when they have a dark bit in the middle)."

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FOVB

Guess what lens has 5-bladed (pentagonal) aperture leafs? Why the Hasselblad 60mm lens used onthe moon of course.

Bye Bye St. Mark....

I knew that you were going to use the shape of the Hassie apertures as your excuse for why the Apollo 'Sun' had such a strange shape to it ... It was all you had to go with and just a matter of time .

But your reasoning here doesn't make any sense at all .... If the shape of the camera aperture created that light source shape on the visor , then ALL the Apollo photos showing a reflected light source would look like that , as they ALL used the same type of camera with the same type of aperture ..

Nice try but no cigar ... Is that really the best your buddies on BAUT and Apollo Hoax could come up with ?

Mike is out of town for the weekend , but I will be sure to send him your pretense of a rebuttal to see what he has to say about this latest nonsense .

So I wouldn't say "Bye bye " so quickly if I were you .

* edited to correct a word

So lets review,

I show you a possible reason for the pentagonal highlight, a reason that can be backed by a source not connected to Apollo or Nasa in any way, an effect that can be REPRODUCED via emperical testing and you say no cigar simpy because you THINK it would show up in EVERY Apollo image? Sheesh!

And instead you offer that the pentagonal highlight was caused by some yet to be shown studio light that is either pentagonal in shape or has pentagonal barndoors, neither of which you can produce or even show exist.

No I'm pretty sure its BYE BYE for the youtube twins....

And do't even bother with St. Mark, or even asking him...remember this is YOUR argument! LOL! He can come along ANYTIME and challenge me. He knows where I am.

BTW, Here is what that highlight in the visor REALLY looks like...White just might want to try again....

Added on edit: I posted my crop of 9232...I'll post 9231 in a bit....Posted

NOTICE THE SPECULAR FROM THE SUN IS THE CIRCULAR SHAPE INSIDE THE OUT OF FOCUS PENTAGONAL FLARE DUANE MISTAKES FOR THE ACTUAL SUN.

(levels adjustment)

sun3.jpg

Here is a levels adjustment of the next frame in the series, 9232, slightly different than the adjustment of 9231. Notice the round sun inside of the out of focus pentagonal flare. Also notice the "starburst" spikes...10 in total. The process of creating both the starburst and the pentagonal shaped flare are the same....defraction off of the aperture blades. In the case of starbursts the spike come from the corners were the blades meet. Starbursts happen mostly at small apertures, rarely with the lens wide open or near wide open because at those f stops the blades form a near circle. Also odd numbers of aperture blades produce double the "spikes" as there are blades. Each "corner" produces a spike that extends through both sides of the specular highlight. In the case of a 5 bladed aperture you would see 10 spikes. Even numbers of aperture blades produce even numbers of spikes because each "corner" is exactly opposite the one on the other side.

sun1.jpg

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this was the third photo taken of EVA 1 , there was no time or reason for Shepard to have any "smudges " on his visor ... There was no reason for him to have any "scratches" on his visor ... There was no reason for him to have any "dust " on his visor .... Neither does this photo have any "lens flare" in it .

That is quite incorrect. By the time the photo was taken Shepard had been on the surface almost an hour and had completed quite a number of tasks. Try again next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay , so let me get this straight .... First you claim that the pentagonal shape of the light source reflected in the visor is because the "camera aperture is a pentagonal shape " .

Then you claim that the pentagonal shape is caused by a "flare" around the Sun .

And finally you claim that a defraction off of the aperture blades caused the Sun to be the shape of the Pentagon.

Your photoshopped images aren't proof of anything except that you know how to tap dance pretty well .

So my question to you is this ... If the Hassleblad camera aperture can cause the Sun to have a pentagonal shape , then why do no other Apollo light source reflections have this particular shape ? ... Some are more square , some are mostly round ( as most spotlights are ) , yet NONE of them have the concentric spikes surrounding a small round shape , that should be there if they were reflections of the real Sun .

Here are some other photos which prove that the Apollo 'Sun' reflections were not created by the real Sun , but rather an artificial light source .

As opposed to god knows what this is supposed to be. There appears to be an overhead object blocking the right side of the source light.

A8axAS17-134-20387HR.jpg

The sun photographed behind a spacewalking Shuttle astronaut. Note the light spokes manfesting through the camera lens.

A8ayDSCF0108.jpg

Apollo 11 70mm Hasselblad photograph of the sun from low earth orbit.

A8bAS11-36-5293-1.jpg

Apollo 14 70mm Hasselblad photograph of a very different looking " sun from the lunar surface". Note also the distinct difference in shade and coloration between background & foreground in this image.

A8cAS14-66-9305.jpg

*edited to add missing photo text .

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just sent you a PM asking you to please not alter my posts ... I also asked you since you are on the forum , why you don't allow my other posts to be submitted now on the other Apollo threads ?

It looks like there might be a reason you don't want to submit my other posts .... So why are you issuing me a formal warning when I have done nothing wrong ? ... I know for a fact what image I put in my post ... It was the Alan Shepard photo from the Apollo Image Gallery , not the study I put here yesterday for Jack .

Once more:

1. I have not altered or edited your posts in any way.

2. I am not unduly holding up your posts; in fact I am attending to them as fast as I can. The only posts I am not touching are posts made by Jack. I have stated I will refrain from moderating his posts (that includes approving them) and I am adhering to that undertaking.

3. I brought to your attention the fact that the image did not match the description. That's all. The security logs will show I did NOT alter the post in any way. I'd suggest you made an error in the original post. Easy to do, and we can all make mistakes.

4. You are being formally warned because of your unfounded public accusations - such as another one in the quoted post ("It looks like there might be a reason you don't want to submit my other posts..."). These accusations are a form of abuse or harassment. If you have claims of such a serious nature, bring them to the attention of John or Andy as soon as possible. DO NOT MAKE PUBLIC ACCUSATIONS OF WRONGDOING AGAINST A FORUM MEMBER.

I would ask John or Andy to - once again - publicly confirm that I have not altered Duane's posts / images in any way.

I have been keeping score since Burton got me put on "moderation". Today I complained

to moderator Antti Hynonen that FIVE or more of my postings have disappeared without

any notice or reason. He has not yet replied to my protest. Most of them were very innocuous

and non-controversial and most were on the JFK forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...