Moon hoax - Photographic claims

[Craig Lamson]

Then go ahead and refute them instead of pretending that the discussion is about my lack of photographic knowledge ...

In other words .... Put your money where your big , rude mouth is .

Have you forgotten the way things work Duane? You made these claims (using someone elses work), it your job to provide proof that the claims are correct. The discussion IS about the claims you have made, your lack of ability is simply the reason you are trying to pawn this off on someone else.

The question remains despite your attempt to shift the burden of proof....SHOW US YOU PROOFS!

[Evan Burton]

Then go ahead and refute them instead of pretending that the discussion is about my lack of photographic knowledge ...

In other words .... Put your money where your big , rude mouth is .

Have you forgotten the way things work Duane? You made these claims (using someone elses work), it your job to provide proof that the claims are correct. The discussion IS about the claims you have made, your lack of ability is simply the reason you are trying to pawn this off on someone else.

The question remains despite your attempt to shift the burden of proof....SHOW US YOU PROOFS!

Craig,

Normally I'd say: just go ahead and prove it's wrong. Duane, however, has a track record of making bold claims and them failing to back them up with empirical evidence.

That makes me say: make him prove his claims for once.

Despite that, it does leave me undecided. IMO Duane will post and support whatever happens to co-incide with his own beliefs, regardless of the accuracy of the material. He won't back up such claims with empirical evidence because he is unable to produce any such evidence. Basically, he'll stick to his beliefs regardless of any evidence to the contrary*.

As I have said, my reason for devoting energies here is NOT to try and enlighten such people as Duane (IMO he is a 'lost cause'). Instead, it is to show people who might believe those claims actually how wrong they are, showing why the claims are incorrect, and encouraging those people to examine and test the claims. To take a claim to an expert in the field (if they are not) and ask: "Is this correct? If so, why? If not, why not?".

So I'll go back to my original position - show Duane why Dr Jones' claims are incorrect. That way 'lurkers' can take both Duane's postings from Dr Jones, and your evidence to the contrary, to experts in the field and ask those important questions: "Is this correct / incorrect? Why?".

* Readers may remember in another thread where I offered to have independent verification of Apollo's technical capabilities. My only conditions were that I had to agree that they were capable of assessing the technical viability of the system (e.g. Fred down the pub is not a suitable authority, even if he is a pretty smart fella), and Duane must nominate the independent authority first so that he cannot later claim that the authority was biased in some way. Duane has failed to take up this offer.

Reference: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8768&st=45

[Craig Lamson]

Then go ahead and refute them instead of pretending that the discussion is about my lack of photographic knowledge ...

In other words .... Put your money where your big , rude mouth is .

Have you forgotten the way things work Duane? You made these claims (using someone elses work), it your job to provide proof that the claims are correct. The discussion IS about the claims you have made, your lack of ability is simply the reason you are trying to pawn this off on someone else.

The question remains despite your attempt to shift the burden of proof....SHOW US YOU PROOFS!

Craig,

Normally I'd say: just go ahead and prove it's wrong. Duane, however, has a track record of making bold claims and them failing to back them up with empirical evidence.

That makes me say: make him prove his claims for once.

Despite that, it does leave me undecided. IMO Duane will post and support whatever happens to co-incide with his own beliefs, regardless of the accuracy of the material. He won't back up such claims with empirical evidence because he is unable to produce any such evidence. Basically, he'll stick to his beliefs regardless of any evidence to the contrary*.

As I have said, my reason for devoting energies here is NOT to try and enlighten such people as Duane (IMO he is a 'lost cause'). Instead, it is to show people who might believe those claims actually how wrong they are, showing why the claims are incorrect, and encouraging those people to examine and test the claims. To take a claim to an expert in the field (if they are not) and ask: "Is this correct? If so, why? If not, why not?".

So I'll go back to my original position - show Duane why Dr Jones' claims are incorrect. That way 'lurkers' can take both Duane's postings from Dr Jones, and your evidence to the contrary, to experts in the field and ask those important questions: "Is this correct / incorrect? Why?".

* Readers may remember in another thread where I offered to have independent verification of Apollo's technical capabilities. My only conditions were that I had to agree that they were capable of assessing the technical viability of the system (e.g. Fred down the pub is not a suitable authority, even if he is a pretty smart fella), and Duane must nominate the independent authority first so that he cannot later claim that the authority was biased in some way. Duane has failed to take up this offer.

Reference: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8768&st=45

I agree in principal Evan, however I'm simply tired of watching CT's make silly claims and then walk away, leaving someone else to do the hard work to clean up their messes. Duane and Jack White are perfect examples. It shuold be pretty clear by now that Duane, like Jack White has nothing of substance to offer.

I'll give it some thought.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

You two sure can blow some smoke ... Too bad neither one of you have any fire to go with it .....

So this turned out just like I suspected it would ... You obviously can't refute this physicist's photographic claims , so you attack me instead .... How typically pathetic of both of you ...

This isn't rocket science kids but rather photograpic concepts that Herr lamson should be able to easily refute ... but of course as we can all see by now , the only thing this moon Nazi is capable of , is attacking Jack and me and everyone else who can see slap through nasa's lies of landing men on the moon and also their lies about their phony moon set photos ....

Just because most physicists either fell for nasa's fantasy of landing men on the moon , or are too afraid to speak out against nasa , doesn't in any way imply that Dr. Jones is wrong and the other physicists are right ... He just has what it takes to go up against the majority , where the others couldn't be bothered or are too afraid to buck the system .... For obvious reasons .

Dr. Jones has shown where nasa'a Apollo photos are bogus , faked moon set crap .... And all the two of you have shown as usuall , is that you have no real rebuttle to his claims .... Why would I need to defend his evidence when I completely agree with it ? .... The mind games you gullible geeks , clavius clones and moon Nazi's play is so silly and transparent ...

If you clowns have forgotten how the game works , then here is a little reminder for you.... I post the claims , now it's up to one of you to try to refute them ... Not for me to continue to defend them ... Remember how it works now ?

So rebutt away Mr. Big Shot Photographer ... Or don't you have what it takes to go up a physicist and a professional photographer who just blew nasa's faked photos completely out of the water ?

Edited January 25, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

If you clowns have forgotten how the game works , then here is a little reminder for you.... I post the claims , now it's up to one of you to try to refute them ... Not for me to continue to defend them ... Remember how it works now ?

So rebutt away Mr. Big Shot Photographer ... Or don't you have what it takes to go up a physicist and a professional photographer who just blew nasa's faked photos completely out of the water ?

Duane

I already did this with one of his claims in a previous post - you chose to ignore my rebuttal and continue with your recent strategy of accusing people who have a different opinion to yours of being liars. As you have asked for rebuttals, I'm sure you are capable of addressing the message this time, and showing me where I'm wrong, rather than falsely accusing me of being a xxxx yet again - a distraction tactic that is not only becoming extremely wearisome, but also somewhat revealing about your own character.

He also quite clearly has no idea about how perspective works, as he demonstrates in this paragraph.

ANSWER

He continues his ridicule of those that question the Apollo programme, by claiming that we do not understand perspective.

A further outlandish claim that Dr. Bouw uses to reinforce his disdain is: “Consider another related phenomenon called [?] which occurs when the sun shines through a hole in a distant cloud. The resulting sun rays are anything but parallel. They each trace back to the sun.” Do they? In that case, the Sun would be just above the clouds.

My bolding. The effect is called Crepuscularity.

Using his logic, the sun would be just behind the clouds. Last time I checked, it was approximately 93,000,000 miles away. The light rays in the photo are (essentially) parallel - they don't look parallel due to perspective. The author has shot himself in the foot by demonstrating he can't understand this basic concept.

So - is Doctor Jones correct when he infers that the sun should be "just above the clouds" according to the photo I posted? Or can you not answer my rebuttal without admitting he is wrong? I suspect that is why you failed to answer my post lsat time and went straight on the offensive wuth the unwarranted false accusation of lying. Try sticking to the message this time.

PS if you think I somehow faked this image, you can Google up a whole host of them fior yourself. Here's a few to be going on with.

Google results for "crepuscular rays"

Edited January 25, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Duane Daman]

The photo you posted has nothing to do with nasa's faked moon set photos .

I don't call people liars for no reason .... So it is not a "distraction tactic" on my part but merely an honest opinion of what is taking place here among the nasa defenders .

I lost all respect for you when you posted the Apollo 17 photo here again , which had absolutely nothing to do with the Apollo 12 photo anomaly and which I had the honesty and decency to concede quite awhile ago ... I have the integrity to admit it when I have been proven wrong about something .... Something which you are obviously not capable of doing .

[Craig Lamson]

You two sure can blow some smoke ... Too bad neither one of you have any fire to go with it .....

So this turned out just like I suspected it would ... You obviously can't refute this physicist's photographic claims , so you attack me instead .... How typically pathetic of both of you ...

This isn't rocket science kids but rather photograpic concepts that Herr lamson should be able to easily refute ... but of course as we can all see by now , the only thing this moon Nazi is capable of , is attacking Jack and me and everyone else who can see slap through nasa's lies of landing men on the moon and also their lies about their phony moon set photos ....

Just because most physicists either fell for nasa's fantasy of landing men on the moon , or are too afraid to speak out against nasa , doesn't in any way imply that Dr. Jones is wrong and the other physicists are right ... He just has what it takes to go up against the majority , where the others couldn't be bothered or are too afraid to buck the system .... For obvious reasons .

Dr. Jones has shown where nasa'a Apollo photos are bogus , faked moon set crap .... And all the two of you have shown as usuall , is that you have no real rebuttle to his claims .... Why would I need to defend his evidence when I completely agree with it ? .... The mind games you gullible geeks , clavius clones and moon Nazi's play is so silly and transparent ...

If you clowns have forgotten how the game works , then here is a little reminder for you.... I post the claims , now it's up to one of you to try to refute them ... Not for me to continue to defend them ... Remember how it works now ?

So rebutt away Mr. Big Shot Photographer ... Or don't you have what it takes to go up a physicist and a professional photographer who just blew nasa's faked photos completely out of the water ?

Ok Duane I'm going to once again exposed your ignorance when it comes to photography and take Jones down with you. But before I do, who exactly is the 'professional" photographer you are reffering to? That moron Jones?

[Dave Greer]

The photo you posted has nothing to do with nasa's faked moon set photos .

I don't call people liars for no reason .... So it is not a "distraction tactic" on my part but merely an honest opinion of what is taking place here among the nasa defenders .

I lost all respect for you when you posted the Apollo 17 photo here again , which had absolutely nothing to do with the Apollo 12 photo anomaly and which I had the honesty and decency to concede quite awhile ago ... I have the integrity to admit it when I have been proven wrong about something .... Something which you are obviously not capable of doing .

The photo I posted has EVERYTHING to do with Dr Jones claims - he specifically refers to it in your cut and paste job. Since you stated you agree with everything he said, and invited rebuttals, why won't you address it? This is the second time I've posted it, the second time you've tried to ignore it.

Re the Apollo 17 photo - I think it's quite clear why I posted it - to show that your subjective opinion of what you claim to be "obvious reflections of fans or stagelights" has prior history of being proved wrong, and admitted by yourself to be wrong. (I lauded you for that admission). You needed reminding of your fallibility re subjective opinions of photos of visors - seems you need that reminder again, as you are continuing to call people liars for not agreeing with your (admitted) flawed interpretation of artefacts on visors. I've already done so in another thread - not to make you look silly (you're doing a grand job on your own) but to put your opinion into focus for anyone here who isn't aware of your prior history of mistaking mundane artefacts on a visor for reflections of imaginary objects. You can't even admit you may be wrong about the Apollo 12 photos - despite your previous history. That's why I posted that picture - and will continue to do so for as long as you keep insisting that people (who disagree with your opinion on what a visor artefact is) are liars, or blind, or paid NASA disinfo agents.

If that means you've lost respect for me, tough.

[Duane Daman]

lamson .... You have the audacity to call Dr. Jones the physicist and professional photographer , a moron ? ...

Look below to see who the real moron is ... The Indiana hick who thinks he's God's gift to the world of photography .

A man who is so embarrassed of who he really is that he has to hide behind a silly looking cap to try to disguise his true identity ! .... You're a pathetic joke lamson ... If you 'take down' Jones , it will only be in your own sociopathic mind , using more of your moon Nazi tactics and lies to pretend to do it .

Moon Nazi in disguise .... Pretty scary stuff .

geek greer .... You are a either a xxxx , blind, or paid NASA disinfo agent.... Or probably all three .

[Craig Lamson]

lamson .... You have the audacity to call Dr. Jones the physicist and professional photographer , a moron ? ...

Look below to see who the real moron is ... The Indiana hick who thinks he's God's gift to the world of photography .

A man who is so embarrassed of who he really is that he has to hide behind a silly looking cap to try to disguise his true identity ! .... You're a pathetic joke lamson ... If you 'take down' Jones , it will only be in your own sociopathic mind , using more of your moon Nazi tactics and lies to pretend to do it .

Moon Nazi in disguise .... Pretty scary stuff .

geek greer .... You are a either a xxxx , blind, or paid NASA disinfo agent.... Or probably all three .

You are writing checks your brain can't cash again Duane.....

Yep Jones is a MORON, and since you are marching in lockstep with Jones, what does that make you?

Jones is going down, YOU are going down.

Simple REPETEABLE experiments and solid photographic facts will destroy you and your moron mentor. You might try and deny it but the facts will remain for everyone to see. You are toast.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

The only people who will agree with a dishonest moon Nazi like you are the one's who want to believe your and nasa's lies .

You can post any photographic nonsense you want to here but you will never be a physicist and you will never really be able to prove Dr. Jones wrong .

In fact , you will never be anything but what you are ... An online sociopath with the manners of a cowardly bully and an Indiana hick , who pretends to be important .

Why did you hide behind the cap lamson ? ... Ashamed of who you really are or ashamed of what you really look like ?

Edited January 25, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

The only people who will agree with a dishonest moon Nazi like you are the one's who want to believe your and nasa's lies .

You can post any photographic nonsense you want to here but you will never be a physicist and you will never really be able to prove Dr. Jones wrong .

In fact , you will never be anything but what you are ... An online sociopath with the manners of a cowardly bully and an Indiana hick , who pretends to be important .

Why did you hide behind the cap lamson ? ... Ashamed of who you really are or ashamed of what you really look like ?

Wow...can we ever see exactly how closed minded you really are...I love it when guys like you expose your inner self...and in your case its not a pretty sight.

Of course you are not equipped tell if what I post is nonsence or not, you simply don't have the knowlege. All you can do is parrot the works of others who share your worldview, not knowing if what you are copying is correct or not...

You can take or leave the facts I am going to post, or you can run the tests yourself and see if I'm wrong. The truth is the truth, regardless of the fact your warped worldview presents you from seeing it.

As for myself, I am what I am, proud to be where I'm from and very secure of my knowlege of the art and science of photography. I'm going to show the world just how silly you (and by extention "dr." Jones.

I'm sorry you don't like my picture, I'm very happy with it.

[Jack White]

Duane...I have dealt with dozens of good pro photographers, and most of

them were extremely busy with photo shoots. Check the times of Lamson's

postings...all day long...he must have no clients at all...just sits around

posting infantile crap on this forum. A successful photographer is usually

in great demand, but he has no work apparently. But he must have an

income from some source. Maybe he gets residual pay for taking those

Apollo studio shots. Many of them are so good they went undetected for

years. Good lighting (for studio work).

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Duane...I have dealt with dozens of good pro photographers, and most of

them were extremely busy with photo shoots. Check the times of Lamson's

postings...all day long...he must have no clients at all...just sits around

posting infantile crap on this forum. A successful photographer is usually

in great demand, but he has no work apparently. But he must have an

income from some source. Maybe he gets residual pay for taking those

Apollo studio shots. Many of them are so good they went undetected for

years. Good lighting (for studio work).

Jack

Nice post Jack, you trying to change the subject because your skill set is a bit short?

If you have worked with a lot of pros you would also know that photographers who do big projects often have times betwwen them without assignment. My core customer group is working as we speak creating their product line for 2008, and those prototypes will beging to arrive for photography starting the end of next month. I'm lucky enough to make loads of money in a 10 month timeframe so that I'm able to relax and screw around during the winter months. No need to worry about my workload, I have all that I want, and more than I need.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

Jack .... It looks as though your friend lamson doesn't enjoy being on the receiving end of personal attacks .... He certainly can dish them out , but as most mean spirited , small minded cowards go , he sure can't take them .

He thinks because he has a photo studio in Nowhere , Indiana that he is important ... and can make "toast" of the physicist and professional photographer , Dr. Jones , by posting more of his photographic BS 'rebuttals' ..... and you're right , he obviously doesn't have much to do besides blow smoke and also blow his own narcissistic horn , on forums where people like us are trying to expose nasa's great lie of going to the moon and taking bogus picture perfect postcard studio photos with regular Kodak land film , as their 'proof' of having gone there .

If you haven't looked at the APOLLO HOAX FAQ article I posted here , check it out .... Not only does the astronomer Nathan Jones provide definative proof that Apollo was faked here on Earth , but our resident moon Nazi , gullible geeks , Apollo apologists , clavius clones , and defenders of nasa's ONE GIANT LIE FOR MANKIND , apparently haven't found a way to 'refute' the article evidence yet ...

Maybe Evan will e-mail somebody at nasa for help ... Or maybe the moon Nazi will personally attack me for posting that one also .... Or possibly geek greer will make up some more lies ... Anything is possible with this pack of fools .

Edited January 25, 2007 by Duane Daman