Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Goon Squad


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I decided to expand my search, and used Google to search for "Mr Light" (please note - capitalisation and punctuation is not recognised). That gave a huge number of returns, including a number of companies that use the name. I then filtered the search by using "Mr Light" AND "Lamson" (since if Craig claimed in a post that he was called that by customers, his surname would have also been included in the post).

That drastically reduced the returns and the only examples I could find were of Jack calling Craig "Mr Light" or Craig saying that Jack had called him "Mr Light".

There were NO examples of Craig calling himself "Mr Light".

Come on Jack - admit you were wrong. It's not that a significant point... in fact, it will demonstrate that you DO admit error when proven wrong. Three little words Jack, that's all you have to say to clear your name: "I was wrong".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW - if you think Jack is correct then by all means research the claim yourself and - most importantly - SHOW THE POST/S WHERE CRAIG CALLED HIMSELF "MR LIGHT".

It would help Jack enormously.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one does a forum search for the keyword: light member: Jack White they will see that he first called Craig that Sept. 15 `05 and if one does the same search for Craig they won`t find any examples of him using that term before that date. Jack is wrong and the more he insists that he isn't the further he proves he is extremely adverse to admitting error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Here is the roll of film that include the imae in question. Check out the high res version, its not a drawing.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/c...mm/magazine/?44

The high res image. Be sure to click it twice to enlarge to the max

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S11/44/6598.jpg

Edited to add by moderator: I have disabled the image and turned it into a link only. It was causing a few problems for people with slower internet connections (like me). Please still look at the image link to evaluate Craig's claims.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I decided to expand my search, and used Google to search for "Mr Light" (please note - capitalisation and punctuation is not recognised). That gave a huge number of returns, including a number of companies that use the name. I then filtered the search by using "Mr Light" AND "Lamson" (since if Craig claimed in a post that he was called that by customers, his surname would have also been included in the post).

That drastically reduced the returns and the only examples I could find were of Jack calling Craig "Mr Light" or Craig saying that Jack had called him "Mr Light".

There were NO examples of Craig calling himself "Mr Light".

Come on Jack - admit you were wrong. It's not that a significant point... in fact, it will demonstrate that you DO admit error when proven wrong. Three little words Jack, that's all you have to say to clear your name: "I was wrong".

methinks this moderator (and the Redd Foxx's favorite bud-the Lenster) are whining way too much... but don't let this person interrupt your JFK assassination related photo-film researcher bashing.... carry on!

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, I split the RGB planes and focused on enhancing the blurry bits and then recombined them, so the result of this is what may look like a drawing of the LM, but as Craigs post shows, in its original format it's clearly not so. It stays so sharp in either instance quite simply because they used a Hasselblad.

EDIT ADD : (stays should be is) ...with Zeiss lenses.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Thanks for reminding me that Mr. Light first showed up on the Rich DellaRosa forum, before

this forum started, I think. He and a half dozen others got exiled for ad hominem attacks.

Then he migrated here when I came here. So long ago I had forgotten.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, I split the RGB planes and focused on enhancing the blurry bits and then recombined them, so the result of this is what may look like a drawing of the LM, but as Craigs post shows, in its original format it's clearly not so. It stays so sharp in either instance quite simply because they used a Hasselblad.

EDIT ADD : (stays should be is) ...with Zeiss lenses.

Since Dolva knows all about the cameras used on the Apollo missions,

perhaps he can explain to the unitiated all about the RETICLES, sometimes

called RETICULES.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack avoids the issue: he refuses to admit he made a mistake. How can anyone not question the integrity of someone who deliberately maintains a position that they have been shown to be false?

If he is not deliberately refusing to admit what is proven errors, then what is the alternative? Either incompetence or a decline in mental ability to recognise such errors. You can decide which of them - or combination of them - it may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, I split the RGB planes and focused on enhancing the blurry bits and then recombined them, so the result of this is what may look like a drawing of the LM, but as Craigs post shows, in its original format it's clearly not so. It stays so sharp in either instance quite simply because they used a Hasselblad.

EDIT ADD : (stays should be is) ...with Zeiss lenses.

Since Dolva knows all about the cameras used on the Apollo missions,

perhaps he can explain to the unitiated all about the RETICLES, sometimes

called RETICULES.

Jack

What is it eaxctly you don't know White? Oh, how bout the fact the blads in the command module did not have them, that only the SURFACE cameras did?

Oh sorry, yet another White argument tossed into the trashbin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, what leads you to believe I know anything beyond what I've posted with regard to the Hassel Blad, vague memories, special for me, as I grew up in Sweden at that time and ( as boys do/did followed the lunar project avidly. I wanted to be ab loody Astronaut, would you believe that? (rhetorical). Then I moderated and briefly considered the American Presidency, but as you know, life has its twists and turns and more important things took its place) can't help but have a rudimentary knowledge heralded with the question ''were Hasselblads used?''. Then I read bits and pieces over the last couple of days with direction from others.

To then go from there and say that I know all about the cameras (tho we do have a collection if Zeiss cameras, box, concertina folding flat, and others, and seeing from an early childhood dad working in his darkroom, (yet never developed a consuming interest)(the Hassel Blad was never more than an unattainable dream, not even worth considering)) is stretching it a bit.

I didn't even realise the name is possibly to do with the shutter, blad being blade, so I'm guessing Hassel was a person who invented a superior shutter mechanism?

______

btw, (anyone?) were the lenses at that time artificially ''blued'' or aged?

Edited by John Dolva
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...