Duane Daman Posted February 10, 2007 Author Share Posted February 10, 2007 Like Jack just posted .... The VERY MINUTE either he or I post here , you or one of the other nasa flunkies are right behind us on the attack ... What a pathetic life you must lead . The article was not written by Nathan Jones , it was written by Dr. Neville Jones and his credentials have been proven . So maybe it's time that you corrected your postings ... "In other words, your vaunted "Dr." Nathan Jones has just taken you for a ride and you are none the wiser." You always did get Nathan and Neville mixed up didn't you ? But that's okay , we all make mistakes sometimes ... Even those who think they know everything ... Like you for instance . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 10, 2007 Author Share Posted February 10, 2007 (edited) double post Edited February 10, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Like Jack just posted .... The VERY MINUTE either he or I post here , you or one of the other nasa flunkies are right behind us on the attack ... What a pathetic life you must lead .The article was not written by Nathan Jones , it was written by Dr. Neville Jones and his credentials have been proven . So maybe it's time that you corrected your postings ... "In other words, your vaunted "Dr." Nathan Jones has just taken you for a ride and you are none the wiser." You always did get Nathan and Neville mixed up didn't you ? But that's okay , we all make mistakes sometimes ... Even those who think they know everything ... Like you for instance . No Duane, it you who have this all screwed up. The misleading quote you posted and then misread claiming the samples were RECEIVED by the curator at JSC was written by the phantom NATHAN JONES...its from his FAQ. NEVILLE Jones wrote the worthless and totally debunked article you also posted....but in it the only mention he made of Moon Rocks was to say he was not going to talk about them. SO yes, mistakes were made, over and over and over again...BY YOU! SO PLEASE CORRECT YOUR POSTINGS ... AGAIN. You continue to be in error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 10, 2007 Author Share Posted February 10, 2007 (edited) Well it looks like I'm the one who can't keep the Jones' straight . ... That's what I get for always being in a hurry . But as far as posting errors go , you are still wrong because neither Nathan or Neville have been debunked by anyone here .... Especially by you and the drivil you posted in your lame attempts to do so . Edited February 10, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Well it looks like I'm the one who can't keep the Jones' straight . ... That's what I get for always being in a hurry .But as far as posting errors go , you are still wrong because neither Nathan or Neville have been debunked by anyone here .... Especially by you and the drivil you posted in your lame attempts to do so . Since you consider my work "lame" then I'm sure you can offer specfic objections to show exactly were I'm wrong. Why not start with Nevilles failed claims about studio lighting and shadow, and my emperical debunking of his claims. Specfics please, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 11, 2007 Author Share Posted February 11, 2007 If your empirical debunking consists of pointing two lights from opposite directions at two flashlights on a table to show that the lights cause multiple shadows of the flashlights , then I would consider that to be lame . Dr Jones' ( was it Nathan or Neville ) explained that the proper balance of master and slave lighting would not create multiple shadows and you did nothing to debunk his evidence ... If only one huge spotlight or arc light was used to represent the sun on the moon set , then there wouldn't be any multiple shadows anyway . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 (edited) If your empirical debunking consists of pointing two lights from opposite directions at two flashlights on a table to show that the lights cause multiple shadows of the flashlights , then I would consider that to be lame .Dr Jones' ( was it Nathan or Neville ) explained that the proper balance of master and slave lighting would not create multiple shadows and you did nothing to debunk his evidence ... If only one huge spotlight or arc light was used to represent the sun on the moon set , then there wouldn't be any multiple shadows anyway . Ah you show you can't read ONCE AGAIN. The ratio of my lights IS EXACTLY as Neville spec'ed it in his poorly done article. What he did was show he really has zero understanding of photographic lighting, as you have just shown. How did you fail to notice this simple fact? Now offer some real objections to my work and show us why YOU think it is wrong. You clearly can't do it by cribbing Jones because I duplicated what Jones wrote, and have shown him (and you by extension) to be wrong. Try again. As to your suggestion that a spotlight or arc light be used, do you have any practical experience trying to light a photoset and more importanly do you understand the law of the inverse square and how it applies to lighting? I look forward to your detailed reply. Edited February 11, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 11, 2007 Author Share Posted February 11, 2007 (edited) Okay ... here's my detailed reply . Dr. Jones is right and you are wrong .... and I have already explained why . David Percy has studied the Apollo photography extensively and determined and proven that it was all was staged using huge arc lights on the moon sets to represent the sun ... Jack white has done the same . If you look at the phony Apollo panoramas I just posted here , you will be able to see this huge spotlight for yourself . Or do you think those phony photos may really be the real sun on the real moon ? .. If so , then maybe Dr. Jones , David Percy and Jack White need to teach you a few things ... Like the fact that the Apollo photos are all moon set fakes ! Edited February 11, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 (edited) Okay ... here's my detailed reply .Dr. Jones is right and you are wrong .... and I have already explained why . David Percy has studied the Apollo photography extensively and determined and proven that it was all was staged using huge arc lights on the moon sets to represent the sun ... Jack white has done the same . If you look at the phony Apollo panoramas I just posted here , you will be able to see this huge spotllight for yourself . Or do you think those phony photos may really be the real sun on the real moon ? .. If so , then maybe Dr. Jones , David Percy and Jack White need to teach you a few things ... Like the fact that the Apollo photos are all moon set fakes ! No you have not explained why. Here is where you fail. Jones describes an exact lighting setup and clams this will show NO SHADOWS. I recreated his set EXACTLY and it shows exactly what should be expected.,..THREE SHADOW, NOT NO SHADOW. Now you claim you "BELIEVE" Jones. WHY? Belief has noting to to with this. It has been proven emperically. No "belief" requried. The emperical proof trumps your mistaken belief. And the best part of this is anyone can do this simple test and prove it for themself. You haave sin=mply shown your total lack of knowlege inthe subject at hand, photogaphy. As for your statement that Percy and Whaite have "proven" it was huge arc lights (are you sure of that...light"s" means more than one light and in your last post you claimed it was a single light...consistant you are not) is simply false. They have "proven' nothing of the sort. If you think they have then explain IN DETAIL why thier "evidence" is correct. And finally, exactly what is your experience in creating lighing for a photoset and HOW DOES THE LAW OF THE INVERSE SQUARE apply to studio lighting? Try again, you have failed once more. Edited February 11, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 11, 2007 Author Share Posted February 11, 2007 (edited) Oh , I guess I didn't make myself abundantly clear enough the third time then . Jones is right and you are wrong because he explained that the proper balance of master and slave lights would not cause multiple shadows on the moon sets .... Obviously you didn't recreate what he described , but only think you did with your silly flashlights demonstration . Huge arc lights as in; multiple lights for multiple moon sets .... or in other words : one arc light per set or photo shoot . Watch 'What Happened on the Moon' and you will see where Percy provides evidence that the hot spots, irregular shadows of the astronots and the overly large 'sun' reflection in the astronot's visors were all caused by a huge arc light , or in other words ; ARTIFICIAL STAGE LIGHTING ! This large artificial light is most obvious in the Apollo 12 photo shoots , where the big spotlight was only a few feet above the moon set floor . And finally, I have no experience in creating lighting for a photoset but I sure tell the difference between a painted mountain backdrop a few feet away from the subject , from a real mountain , miles away from the subject . And HOW DOW THE LAW OF THE INVERSE SQUARE apply to studio lighting? Edited February 11, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 (edited) Oh , I guess I didn't make myself abundantly clear enough the third time then . Jones is right and you are wrong because he explained that the proper balance of master and slave lights would not cause multiple shadows on the moon sets .... Obviously you didn't recreate what he described , but only think you did with your silly flashlights demonstration . And for the third time you offer nothing. You are at a totally loss due to your inability to understand simply photographic lighting and photography. If you beleve that my emperical evidence is in error you are going to have to do better than telling me "obviously you didn't recreate what he described" Your words mean nothing because they are back with notihng. You are going to actually prove your statement with your own emperical evidence...in other words do the test yourself. Then get back to me. Its really quite telling that Jones didn't provide emperical evidence himself, and thats because he would have failed. He was counting on his readers being ignorant of how photographic lighting works. Huge arc lights as in; multiple lights for multiple moon sets .... or in other words : one arc light per set or photo shoot .Now wait a second Duane, you have claimed MANY TIMES that fill lights were used, as does White and Percy. So which is it? A single light set or sets with many lights? Can you be consistant?Watch 'What Happened on the Moon' and you will see where Percy provides evidence that the hot spots, irregular shadows of the astronots and the overly large 'sun' reflection in the astronot's visors were all caused by a huge arc light , or in other words ; ARTIFICIAL STAGE LIGHTING ! Ah yes, Percy and his HOT SPOTS...which ones would that be Duane? Be exact now so we can do a proper debunking. Irregular shadows? the ones he claim were caused by more than one light on the set (remember YOU just stated it was all done WITH A SINGLE LIGHT!) or by the light being too close? Tell us exactly so we can do a proper debunking. And the large reflection? That one I love. Perhaps you can rebut the science posted by Jay at Apollohoax that shows how devious old Percy was. Seems once again he was banking on his viewers being ignorant about photography. Be sure to check out the nice piece of emperical photograaphic evidence in Jays works that simply blow you right out of the water...and guess what it a simple experiment YOU can do if you think you can prove his wrong. Gosh thats what is so great about emperical evidence...no "belief' required...facts are facts. http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1169203802 Nice try but you have failed again. I look forward to your detailed reply. This large artificial light is most obvious in the Apollo 12 photo shoots , where the big spotlight was only a few feet above the moon set floor . Wonderful. If it is a big spotlight only a few feet above the "moon set floor" please explain how this light can break the law of the inverse square. A detailed answer, please. Edited February 11, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 I know that you and Jay Utah are masters of disinformation when it comes to the Apollo debacle .... You both enjoy nit picking every little detail as a means of distracing from the larger issues .... I am not a photographer so to throw out phrases like "inverse square" is just part of your silly mind games .. It's the old , let's make the conspicy guy look like an idiot and me look like I know what I'm talking about routine .... Yep , you and Jay and everyone who defends nasa , are masters when it comes to many things .... Especially disinformation and distraction tactics . And after watching you and Jay and some of the others in action , I am even more convinced that something is just not well with Apollo ... and most definately not well with the official Apollo photographic record . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I know that you and Jay Utah are masters of disinformation when it comes to the Apollo debacle .... You both enjoy nit picking every little detail as a means of distracing from the larger issues .... But aren't you 'nitpicking' as well? Claiming the astronauts sounded stressed during post-flight interviews, pointing out lack of visible tyre tracks in some images, questioning when a documentary producer uses artistic licence in his work, disputing whether soil should be in LRV tyres? I am not a photographer so to throw out phrases like "inverse square" is just part of your silly mind games .. It's the old , let's make the conspicy guy look like an idiot and me look like I know what I'm talking about routine .... Yep , you and Jay and everyone who defends nasa , are masters when it comes to many things .... Especially disinformation and distraction tactics .And after watching you and Jay and some of the others in action , I am even more convinced that something is just not well with Apollo ... and most definately not well with the official Apollo photographic record . Craig has asked you three times why his illustration of the lighting setup described by Dr Jones is incorrect - can you answer that in more detail, please? I believe you referred to the slave & master lights; why is Craig's re-creation incorrect? What parameter were detailed by Dr Jones which Craig did not follow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I know that you and Jay Utah are masters of disinformation when it comes to the Apollo debacle .... You both enjoy nit picking every little detail as a means of distracing from the larger issues .... I am not a photographer so to throw out phrases like "inverse square" is just part of your silly mind games .. It's the old , let's make the conspicy guy look like an idiot and me look like I know what I'm talking about routine .... Yep , you and Jay and everyone who defends nasa , are masters when it comes to many things .... Especially disinformation and distraction tactics . And after watching you and Jay and some of the others in action , I am even more convinced that something is just not well with Apollo ... and most definately not well with the official Apollo photographic record . Well Duane, if YOU are going to make claims about how your "moonsets' mihgt have been lit, you are going to need to understand some of the basis principaals of photographhic lighting. The law of the inverse square is one of the most basic. It plays a VERY important role. If you don't understand it you are lost. Of course there is a cure....you could actually LEARN the law of the inverse square as it apply to light and then apply this new knowlege to the problem at hand. Continuing bluster on your part adds nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 (edited) Dr. Jones was only addressing the assertions made by his opponent ... He didn't make the claim that multiple light sources were necessarily used on the moon set , but rather refuted the evidence proposed that it couldn't be possible to use mulitple light sources without producing multiple shadows . He explained that if the master and slave lights had the proper balance , multiple shadows would not occur ... but I can't prove whether this is correct information or not . And this is what I consider nit picking , because Dr. Jones rebutted his opponent on so many other more important issues , but you only focused in on this one issue because , being a photographer , you could play a game with this . I , on the other hand, would have no way of knowing how many lights were used on the moon sets or where they may have been placed to not create mulitiple shadows . I have seen the evidence though , that artificial lighting was used in the form of a huge spotlight to represent the sun ... and this explained the many lighting anomalies which are evident in the Apollo photos . Edited February 15, 2007 by Duane Daman 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