Jump to content

Moon hoax - Photographic claims


Duane Daman
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 .

Duane

Over the last few weeks we've enjoyed occasional pleasant banter along with at times robust debating on here. Obviously that changed a week or so ago when you wildly over-reacted when I pointed out you had been wrong in the past in your analysis of an Apollo photo.

Our opinions on Apollo differ - so what?

Have you any idea how you are portraying yourself to anyone following these threads, regardless of their opinion of the subject matter? How about actually discussing facts, and defending your opinions? Or are you only left with the lies and personal attacks you claim to abhor?

Get over yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We can see Duane's typical modus operandi coming to the fore.

He knows full well all the claims he posts are being effectively rebutted. People reading the threads can see that his so-called proof is worthless.

So instead he'll be provocative and offensive in the hopes of being banned. That way he can play the victim once more, slink off somewhere and claim "They banned me because they wanted to prevent the truth being told!".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan ... I don't see where anyone has "rebutted" any of my claims about the bogus Apollo missions and the faked Apollo photos ...

Do you think the stagelight/ceiling fan reflection in the Apollo 12 visor is just a smudge on the visor too ? .. And if so , can you please show us all the proof of this ?

My attitude here recently has nothing to do with anyone pretending to rebutt my hoax evidence ... It's because I am tried of the games that are played here and the lies that are told by those who defend nasa's lies ..When I first started posting here I was hoping we could discuss the Apollo hoax evidence like rational adults , but most of you quickly proved that was an imossibility with your constant insults and name calling directed at me ... lamson being the worst of the bunch ... Sorry , but shooting the messenger will not stop the message .

If you want to pretend to debunk some hoax evidence , why not try taking on Nathan and Neville Jones ? It looks like nobody here so far has been able make make "toast" of either one of their articles , which provides clear evidence and proof that nasa faked the moon missions right here on earth .

It's about time the physicists , astronomers and some other professional photographers also , have the guts to take on nasa's lies of sending men to the moon .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan ... I don't see where anyone has "rebutted" any of my claims about the bogus Apollo missions and the faked Apollo photos ... ...If you want to pretend to debunk some hoax evidence , why not try taking on Nathan and Neville Jones ? It looks like nobody here so far has been able make make "toast" of either one of their articles ...

Therein lies your problem. You maintain a blind spot when people present rebuttals. Try reading the replies, and looking at the links provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to pretend to debunk some hoax evidence , why not try taking on Nathan and Neville Jones ? It looks like nobody here so far has been able make make "toast" of either one of their articles , which provides clear evidence and proof that nasa faked the moon missions right here on earth .

I keep asking you about one of the doctor's claims from the article you posted, but you haven't addressed it yet as you claim it has nothing to do with the moon andings. Well, you posted it, and it has everything to do with the Dr interprets perspective in photos, so I see no point in addressing the rest of his points until you either agree with my rebuttal, or show that I'm wrong and the doctor is right. Here's my post again...

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.

052705-1w.JPG

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"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Jones .... "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."

Dave ... "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."

The sun being just above the clouds is a figure of speech ... I'm sure that Dr. Jones understands how far away the sun really is from the clouds ... Is this your meaningless point , referring to Dr. Jones "shooting himself in the foot " ? ... Or is it about the light rays not looking parallel ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Jones .... "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."

Dave ... "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."

The sun being just above the clouds is a figure of speech ... I'm sure that Dr. Jones understands how far away the sun really is from the clouds ... Is this your meaningless point , referring to Dr. Jones "shooting himself in the foot " ? ... Or is it about the light rays not looking parallel ?

Well, let's look at what Dr Jones said.

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.

He states that it is an "outlandish claim" to say that when the sun shines through a hole in a cloud, the rays obviously don't look parallel, but each traces back to the sun (paraphrasing). He even questions it by saying "Do they?" And then he states his belief that if this was the case, " the Sun would be just above the clouds".

So, what point in your opinion is Dr Jones actually trying to make? The language he uses (outlandish claim), and his hypothesis about where the sun would be given such a photo, makes it quite clear that he doesn't agree with Dr Bouw. I've provided evidence to support Dr Bouw's statement. If Dr Jones is agreeing with him, then (1) why did he bring the point up, and (2) why did he say Dr Bouw was making an outlandish claim? If Jones is disagreeing with Bouw - as his language strongly suggests - then clearly he is wrong.

Hence, Dr Jones has, in my opinion, shot himself in the foot.

Edited by Dave Greer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's no stranger to making peculiar claims - apparently the HST (Hubble) shouldn't be able to image faint objects.

http://www.geocentricperspective.com/page23.htm

And the brightness of the full moon is wrong, and can't be explained by the sun.

And the Earth doesn't rotate - the stars and planets rotate around the Earth.

He is, of course, entitled to his opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to pretend to debunk some hoax evidence , why not try taking on Nathan and Neville Jones ? It looks like nobody here so far has been able make make "toast" of either one of their articles , which provides clear evidence and proof that nasa faked the moon missions right here on earth .

I keep asking you about one of the doctor's claims from the article you posted, but you haven't addressed it yet as you claim it has nothing to do with the moon andings. Well, you posted it, and it has everything to do with the Dr interprets perspective in photos, so I see no point in addressing the rest of his points until you either agree with my rebuttal, or show that I'm wrong and the doctor is right. Here's my post again...

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.

052705-1w.JPG

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"

This is of course using a NONSEQUITUR to try to fool the unwary. When the sun shines

through a hole in the clouds, what we see IS NOT SUNRAYS, BUT SHADOWS OF THE

CLOUDS DEPICTED ON ATMOSPHERIC PARTICLES. It is false to say they represent

the direction of sunrays. The phenomenon merely follows the laws of physics of any

light casting a shadow.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the paragraph in Dr. Jones' linked article that you are having such a problem with ?

"In an attempt to compensate for the distortion introduced by the World's atmosphere, either post-detection techniques, such as speckle imaging, or real-time, pre-detection techniques - adaptive optics - may be employed, with varying levels of success. Alternatively, one could try a satellite-based approach, as is claimed with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). Such satellite telescopes would not work either, though, because they could not be locked onto a faint object for long enough, and are yet another example of science fiction masquerading as fact."

I just read the article you linked here and have no idea where you have gotten your incorrect statements from .

"And the brightness of the full moon is wrong, and can't be explained by the sun."

"And the Earth doesn't rotate - the stars and planets rotate around the Earth."

Other than you are just another nasa stooge , busy spreading more disinformation ... and not very good at it , at that .

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to pretend to debunk some hoax evidence , why not try taking on Nathan and Neville Jones ? It looks like nobody here so far has been able make make "toast" of either one of their articles , which provides clear evidence and proof that nasa faked the moon missions right here on earth .

I keep asking you about one of the doctor's claims from the article you posted, but you haven't addressed it yet as you claim it has nothing to do with the moon andings. Well, you posted it, and it has everything to do with the Dr interprets perspective in photos, so I see no point in addressing the rest of his points until you either agree with my rebuttal, or show that I'm wrong and the doctor is right. Here's my post again...

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.

052705-1w.JPG

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"

This is of course using a NONSEQUITUR to try to fool the unwary. When the sun shines

through a hole in the clouds, what we see IS NOT SUNRAYS, BUT SHADOWS OF THE

CLOUDS DEPICTED ON ATMOSPHERIC PARTICLES. It is false to say they represent

the direction of sunrays. The phenomenon merely follows the laws of physics of any

light casting a shadow.

Jack

Not so fast there Jacko....

Crepuscular rays occur when objects such as mountain peaks or clouds partially shadow the sun's rays. The name crepuscular means "relating to twilight" and these rays are observed at sunrise and sunset. Crepuscular rays appear to diverge outward from the setting sun, and are visible only when the atmosphere contains enough haze or dust particles so that sunlight in unshadowed areas can be scattered toward the observer.

Photograph by: Holle

The light rays are actually parallel, but appear to converge to the sun due to "perspective", the same visual effect that makes parallel railroad tracks appear to converge in the distance. Crepuscular rays are often red or yellow in appearance because blue light from the sun is selectively scattered out of the beam by air molecules.

http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/m...pt/air/crp.rxml

Seems its the SUNLIGHT that needs the ATMOSPHERIC PARTICLES not the shadows....and please note that the suns rays are PARALLEL but its PERSPECTIVE (which YOU and Jones know nothing about) that makes them appear otherwise.

And hey, you posted a Dormam photo in the JFK forum you say is a real representation of shadows and yet they run all over the place...they are NOT parallel in the photograph. Will you now revise all of your Apollo studios where the shadows are not parallel and which you say are fake because if it? Or will you continue to be intellectually dishonest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only dishonest photographer here would be you lamson , with your typical disinformation of defending nasa's bogus Apollo moon set photos ..

Why nit pick some photo taken on earth showing sun rays and parallel shadows , when the Apollo photos you continue to defend were so obviously taken on moon sets ?

Dave posts disinforamtion and distraction tactics here to get away from the real subject , which is ; The Apollo photos are studio fakes and more people are discovering that unhappy fact every day .

You want to talk about perspective ? .... How about the fact that you can't see the perspective of the lack of depth perception of distance in the silly looking Apollo photos showing fake painted cardboard mountain backdrops .

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only dishonest photographer here would be you lamson , with your typical disinformation of defending nasa's bogus Apollo moon set photos ..

Why nit pick some photo taken on earth showing sun rays and parallel shadows , when the Apollo photos you continue to defend were so obviously taken on moon sets ?

Dave posts disinforamtion and distraction tactics here to get away from the real subject , which is ; The Apollo photos are studio fakes and more people are discovering that unhappy fact every day .

You want to talk about perspective ? .... How about the fact that you can't see the perspective of the lack of depth perception of distance in the silly looking Apollo photos showing fake painted cardboard mountain backdrops .

No answers again I see...ROFLMAO!

Duane wrote ignorantly:

"You want to talk about perspective ? .... How about the fact that you can't see the perspective of the lack of depth perception of distance in the silly looking Apollo photos showing fake painted cardboard mountain backdrops ."

You want to try writing that again so it makes sense, sheesh.

We went over this in another thread and you spun yourself right into the red Georgia clay trying the change your story ... Made you look quite the fool.

Edited by Craig Lamson
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...