The Goon Squad

[Jack White]

Qs

Could there be reflections on the window, blurred like the window edge, with the focus on the module? eg is it also a photo of the photographer? What color clothes were worn in the command module? I presume a Hasselblad was used, with the focus on the landing module making it so sharp.. Illuminated with spot lights?

EDIT ADD : here's a cropped photo through the windscreen of my car tonight focusing on the far post with blurred details of the interior of the car and the dashboard

Yes...all the odd colors are mostly reflections on the inside of the window.

My questions related to the perfect lighting of the LM with the sun in a direction

that would not light the module.

Jack

[Jack White]

But then I do not call myself Mr. Light.

Jack

In the sprit of full disclosure, it should be noted that I don't call myself Mr. Light. That was a term of endearment bestowed upon me by Jack White when I did my very first study of his JFK works, the LHO Minsk photo.

I was kind enough to point out to Mr White that his claim that a certain shadow was impossible, thus rendering the photo a fake, was simply not impossible at all. In fact I did a quick shoot in my studio to provide proof of concept. And in response Jack White coined the phrase Mr. Light for which I thank him.

Continuing in the sprit of full disclosure, and the subject of this thread, perhaps Jack White will tell us if he ever removed his claim of the impossible shadow from his "study"

When Lamson first showed up on this forum, he related that many of

his customers called him MR. LIGHT because he always insisted on

perfect creative lighting on products...not ordinary lighting. I visited

his website and his professional photography works ARE lighted very

creatively. BUT I did not bestow that title on him. He said customers

called him that. I have never denied that he is a very good photographer.

But he seems to spend far more time on the internet than behind the

lens.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Hi John.

The answer to most of your questions is 'yes'. Let me explain.

Firstly, the CSM and LM were in lunar orbit on the sunlit side of the Moon. This was deliberate, as what they were doing in the photograph was inspecting the LM. The CSM was pointing "up" from the lunar surface with the LM "above" it. This was so that the LM could be inspected against the black of space. It was a final exterior inspection prior to landing. The LM would rotate about all axis, giving the CMP a good view to ensure nothing was amiss.

There are numerous images available from roll 44, as the entire undocking and inspection sequence was filmed. Go to:

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

Then select FULL HASSELBLAD MAGAZINES, Apollo 11, then Magazine 44. The sequence goes from AS11-44-6565 to AS11-44-6600.

As Craig mentioned, the CM itself was covered with with highly reflective mylar tape.

That image also shows the various windows on the CM. The image Jack shows was probably taken through window 4. Window 5 is flush with the hull so points directly out whereas windows 2 and 4 are recessed to allow you to look directly forward.

Yes, the crew wore white clothes. They were called a Constant Wear Garment and looked like this:

Edited January 24, 2010 by Evan Burton

[Evan Burton]

But then I do not call myself Mr. Light.

Jack

In the sprit of full disclosure, it should be noted that I don't call myself Mr. Light. That was a term of endearment bestowed upon me by Jack White when I did my very first study of his JFK works, the LHO Minsk photo.

I was kind enough to point out to Mr White that his claim that a certain shadow was impossible, thus rendering the photo a fake, was simply not impossible at all. In fact I did a quick shoot in my studio to provide proof of concept. And in response Jack White coined the phrase Mr. Light for which I thank him.

Continuing in the sprit of full disclosure, and the subject of this thread, perhaps Jack White will tell us if he ever removed his claim of the impossible shadow from his "study"

This would seem to be backed up by evidence on this forum. From 2006:

...Claimed all sorts of things to discredit the findings, even gave me the nickname "Mr. Light". Jack never attacks...LOL!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=68484

Can Jack substantiate his claim?

[Craig Lamson]

When Lamson first showed up on this forum, he related that many of

his customers called him MR. LIGHT because he always insisted on

perfect creative lighting on products...not ordinary lighting. I visited

his website and his professional photography works ARE lighted very

creatively. BUT I did not bestow that title on him. He said customers

called him that. I have never denied that he is a very good photographer.

But he seems to spend far more time on the internet than behind the

lens.

Jack

Ok Jack, all of my posts are here on the forum, please show us YOUR version is correct. I would love to go back and look at the old posts from JFK research, except they have all been trashed.

Heck I'll save you the trouble.

I did a search on this forum for all of my posts using the word LIGHT as the keyword. I started with my oldest posts and worked forward. MY first mention of the term Mr. Light was Aug. 28, 2007 when I made this statement:

"Really? Why not find out how Jack came to call me Mr. Light? Then we can see how well you "interpolate""

Now if Jacks claim is correct, he cannot have made ANY posts prior to this date, using the term, Mr. Light, because he said:

"When Lamson first showed up on this forum, he related that many of

his customers called him MR. LIGHT because he always insisted on

perfect creative lighting on products...not ordinary lighting."

If he is telling the truth, and he first heard the term from me on this forum, how could have he called me Mr. Light in his posts on this forum dated Feb.15, 2007...Jan. 27, 2007 and Aug.22, 2006?

Again full discloure I missed a 2006 post as found by Evan Burton. and the above is in error. Sorry. I'll leave it and take my lumps.

The answer is that Jack is not being honest

Of course the TRUTH s exactly as I have stated, and in fact Jack also took to calling my wife, the subject of the proof of concept experiment that trashed Whites silly claim, Mrs. Light.

I'm more than happy to wear the moniker Jack gave me. I do pride myself on the creative application of lighting effects to photographic subjects.

But the truth is JACK created the name, not me.

I wonder why he is ashamed of it?

Edited January 24, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Yes...all the odd colors are mostly reflections on the inside of the window.

My questions related to the perfect lighting of the LM with the sun in a direction

that would not light the module.

Jack

What is it about very big reflectors you don't understand?

[Craig Lamson]

This would seem to be backed up by evidence on this forum. From 2006:

...Claimed all sorts of things to discredit the findings, even gave me the nickname \\\"Mr. Light\\\". Jack never attacks...LOL!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=68484

Can Jack substantiate his claim?

Thanks for finding that one Evan, I missed it in my search. I must edit my other post.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

This would seem to be backed up by evidence on this forum. From 2006:

...Claimed all sorts of things to discredit the findings, even gave me the nickname "Mr. Light". Jack never attacks...LOL!

Curious Evan, what was the specfics of your search? I used my member name and LIGHT as the keyword and that post you listed did not show. I am wondering why.

[Evan Burton]

Curious Evan, what was the specfics of your search? I used my member name and LIGHT as the keyword and that post you listed did not show. I am wondering why.

I had problems too, as I used the search term "Mr Light" but the Forum search engine didn't like it (Mr has only two letters and you need four letters minimum). I also tried to limit the search to your posts only, but the search engine looks for your name, not the poster. So whenever you were quoted it showed up.

I got around that in two ways:

1. I clicked on your name and used the SHOW ALL POSTS function, and when to your first posts on the Forum. Jack said it was when you first showed up so I searched the first 10 pages or so of your posts.

2. A better way is to use Google. Use the advance search, use the term "Mr Light", and limit the results to those from the Forum:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_...i=&safe=off

I went to the last page, then used the SHOW OMITTED RESULTS function. That gave me 775 instances.

The earliest instance I can find is 30 DEC 05, where Jack used the term:

...Such a light dress would have photographed in sharp contrast to the dark background, regardless of the direction of lighting. Mr. Light lies when he says the pedestal was BACKLIGHTED. The sun was in the south, not the west, as any fool can plainly see. Mr. Light surely knows the difference between SIDE-lighting and BACK-lighting.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=50155

[Craig Lamson]

The earliest instance I can find is 30 DEC 05, where Jack used the term:

...Such a light dress would have photographed in sharp contrast to the dark background, regardless of the direction of lighting. Mr. Light lies when he says the pedestal was BACKLIGHTED. The sun was in the south, not the west, as any fool can plainly see. Mr. Light surely knows the difference between SIDE-lighting and BACK-lighting.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=50155

Thanks.

So my dates were incorrect above but the thrust of the argument remains. Jack White was the first to use the term Mr. Light on this forum so his story is impossible, and false.

[Jack White]

The earliest instance I can find is 30 DEC 05, where Jack used the term:

...Such a light dress would have photographed in sharp contrast to the dark background, regardless of the direction of lighting. Mr. Light lies when he says the pedestal was BACKLIGHTED. The sun was in the south, not the west, as any fool can plainly see. Mr. Light surely knows the difference between SIDE-lighting and BACK-lighting.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=50155

Thanks.

So my dates were incorrect above but the thrust of the argument remains. Jack White was the first to use the term Mr. Light on this forum so his story is impossible, and false.

Think anything you want. I would have never coined the "complimentary term" MR. LIGHT.

Lamson posted that is what his customers called him. I used it ONLY because he had called

himself that. I would NEVER have complimented him in a serious way. I was using the term

ONLY because he called himself that.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Think anything you want. I would have never coined the "complimentary term" MR. LIGHT. Lamson posted that is what his customers called him. I used it ONLY because he had called himself that. I would NEVER have complimented him in a serious way. I was using the term ONLY because he called himself that.

Jack

Then PROVE it. You have made a false statement according to all the evidence. If you are right, then prove Craig was wrong.

I'm guessing you can't but won't admit you made a mistake... as you refuse to do so in numerous cases shown.

[Craig Lamson]

Think anything you want. I would have never coined the "complimentary term" MR. LIGHT.

Lamson posted that is what his customers called him. I used it ONLY because he had called

himself that. I would NEVER have complimented him in a serious way. I was using the term

ONLY because he called himself that.

Jack

Right...and you expect us to believe that?

It was NEVER a compliment from you Jack, it was an attempt to SLAM me. The truth is here in the forum archives. PROVE your claim, or accept that you are once again not telling the truth.

As it stands the facts show you made mention of the term Mr. Light, on this forum, LONG BEFORE I even mentioned it. And as Evan was so kind ot post, my first explanation of the term in 06 matches to a tee the one I just gave.

So, show us all where I said what you said I did

BTW, My wife is not amused with your "corruption" of history. She was not pleased you included her in the first place and shes a bit peeved you can't be honest about it now.

[Evan Burton]

BTW - notice Jack does not admit he made a simple and understandable mistake in the example below? Instead he deflects and obfuscates.

How can any rational person not accept that Jack is adverse in the extreme to admitting he makes mistakes?

Okay - second example (thanks for the first Jack).

Jack's claim here.

My reply here.

Jack has made a simple misidentification of which side of the lunar module faces the camera. This was pointed out to him in 2006. Has he corrected his - ahem - "study"? No.

Thanks to Burton for posting AS11-44-6598 for me to examine! I was not familiar with it

previously. I am beginning a study of it which will appear on Aulis. This is a marvelous

Apollo photo full of wonderful colors...and so perfectly lighted!

Perhaps Mr. Burton will appeal to his crony Mr. Lamson to assist me with the text, since

Lamson is the self-proclaimed expert on photographic set lighting. I hope Lamson can

explain the following:

1. The photo is obviously lighted from the top (seen enhanced sun rays at top). I want

Mr. Lamson to describe the method for photographing sunrays against the black background

of outer space (note enhancement). I just cannot figure this out.

2. Though the sun is at the top and there are no light reflectors out in space, how did the

photographer manage to get the SIDE of the LM lighted so perfectly?

It is a mystery to me. But then I do not call myself Mr. Light.

Thanks for your help.

Jack

Edited January 24, 2010 by Evan Burton

[Pat Speer]

Qs

Could there be reflections on the window, blurred like the window edge, with the focus on the module? eg is it also a photo of the photographer? What color clothes were worn in the command module? I presume a Hasselblad was used, with the focus on the landing module making it so sharp.. Illuminated with spot lights?

EDIT ADD : here's a cropped photo through the windscreen of my car tonight focusing on the far post with blurred details of the interior of the car and the dashboard

Excuse my ignorance. I have always assumed the moon landing was fake theory to be lacking substance. After having walked beneath a Saturn V rocket a few years back I found it even more questionable.

But is that image of the LM with the many colors in the posts above supposed to be a photo? Because it's absolutely clear to me it's a drawing. Not the colors. But the image of the LM itself. Is it possible this was a sticker of the LM, placed on a window?

I apologize in advance if this is a really stupid question.