Dave Greer Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Completely up front with altering the photos ? .... Oh that is rich . Duane - you're words mean nothing. Back them up with evidence. Do the test, and post the results here for all the forum members to see. If you've got the cahunas! Professional photographers , astronomers , physicists, scientists and regualar conspiracy researchers have somehow managed to have the courage to go up against the majority and mighty nasa , to expose their monumental lies about landing men on the moon , and you in your dishonesty , have the audacity to call them disingenuous ? Yawn. More Duane ad homs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Completely up front with altering the photos ? .... Oh that is rich .Professional photographers , astronomers , physicists, scientists and regualar conspiracy researchers have somehow managed to have the courage to go up against the majority and mighty nasa , to expose their monumental lies about landing men on the moon , and you in your dishonesty , have the audacity to call them disingenuous ? People have been murdered for trying to expose the Apollo hoax ... and that reason alone is why most people , especially the professionals , have kept their mouths shut about this and their hoax evidence to themselves .. Just for the record, you claim that "altering images" is dishonest? Correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 7, 2007 Author Share Posted February 7, 2007 Stretching and bending shadows is to suit your purposes is dishonest .... Also posting DIFFERENT photos as distraction tactics to get away from the evidence of a clearly faked photo is dishonset also . But not enhancing the color or contrast to bring out certain details of the photo , no .. So of you're trying to drag Jack's studies into this , forget it ...because what he does is not the same thing that Dave does .... Jack tries to enhance the anomalies ... Dave tries to disguise them . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Stretching and bending shadows is to suit your purposes is dishonest .... Also posting DIFFERENT photos as distraction tactics to get away from the evidence of a clearly faked photo is dishonset also . How many times do I have to spell it out for you? Can you not read, or can you not comprehend? I did NOT "bend" any shadow - prove it to yourself in MS Paint. Oh yeah , forgot you aren't interested in the truth. But not enhancing the color or contrast to bring out certain details of the photo , no .. So of you're trying to drag Jack's studies into this , forget it ...because what he does is not the same thing that Dave does .... Jack tries to enhance the anomalies ... Dave tries to disguise them . Utter hogwash, and you know it. You've outed yourself as being truly disingenuous in your replies to posts recently. Or do you want to "put up" for a change and prove which "anomalies" I've tried to disguise? Didn't think so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 7, 2007 Author Share Posted February 7, 2007 (edited) Dave ... I don't ALTER photos to disguise the anomalies , you do .... and if I wasn't interested in the truth , then I wouldn't be posting about how nasa faked the Apollo photography of alleged their manned missions to the moon .... That IS the truth , whether you choose to accept it or not . You tried to disguise the fact that the astronot's shadow is backwards and straight up by "stretching " the photo ... I have no idea how you did it , but you made the shadow conform to the position of the astronot , when it wasn't a match in the photo before you altered it .... That is being completely disingenuous . You also tried to disguise the anomalies in the three lunar buggy photos I posted by posting DIFFERENT photos ... Why do I have to keep repeating this to you ? ... It's obvious that you are the one with the reading and comprehension problem , not I .... and I am very tired of your games . Edited February 7, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Stretching and bending shadows is to suit your purposes is dishonest .... Also posting DIFFERENT photos as distraction tactics to get away from the evidence of a clearly faked photo is dishonset also .But not enhancing the color or contrast to bring out certain details of the photo , no .. So of you're trying to drag Jack's studies into this , forget it ...because what he does is not the same thing that Dave does .... Jack tries to enhance the anomalies ... Dave tries to disguise them . Ok so now we can add hypocrite to the list of things Duane Daman is..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Dave ... I don't ALTER photos to disguise the anomalies , you do .... and if I wasn't interested in the truth , then I wouldn't be posting about how nasa faked the Apollo photography of alleged their manned missions to the moon .... That IS the truth , whether you choose to accept it or not .You tried to disguise the fact that the astronot's shadow is backwards and straight up by "stretching " the photo ... I have no idea how you did it , but you made the shadow conform to the position of the astronot , when it wasn't a match in the photo before you altered it .... That is being completely disingenuous . You also tried to disguise the anomalies in the three lunar buggy photos I posted by posting DIFFERENT photos ... Why do I have to keep repeating this to you ? ... It's obvious that you are the one with the reading and comprehension problem , not I .... and I am very tired of your games . No Duane the person with the problem with REASON and comprehension is DUANE DAMAN. Lets explain exactly why you are at such a loss to understand the SIMPLE EXERCISE Dave performed on the shadow photo. You could NOT UNDERSTAND what you were seeing in the shadow because the LOW ANGLE OF VIEW compressed the width of the shadow. Of this there can be no doubt. What Dave did was stretch the shadow in the horizontal direction TO BRING THE SHADOWS SHAPE TO A MORE NORMAL SIZE, a size that was MASKED by the low viewing angle in the original photo. Dave simply SHOWED YOU what the shadow would look like with a less acute viewing angle, and guess what it matched the astronaut. You were simply wrong again and you refuse to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 7, 2007 Author Share Posted February 7, 2007 Nice try as usual lamson .... Blame me for nasa's photographic errors ... and then pretend that I'm a hypocrite for not admitting to being wrong when I'm NOT wrong . Then you post nonsense like this ... "What Dave did was stretch the shadow in the horizontal direction TO BRING THE SHADOWS SHAPE TO A MORE NORMAL SIZE, a size that was MASKED by the low viewing angle in the original photo." Now that is funny .... Tell me lamson .. During your winter down time with nothing to do , does nasa pay you by the hour , the post , or by the job ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Dave ... I don't ALTER photos to disguise the anomalies , you do .... and if I wasn't interested in the truth , then I wouldn't be posting about how nasa faked the Apollo photography of alleged their manned missions to the moon .... That IS the truth , whether you choose to accept it or not .You tried to disguise the fact that the astronot's shadow is backwards and straight up by "stretching " the photo ... I have no idea how you did it , but you made the shadow conform to the position of the astronot , when it wasn't a match in the photo before you altered it .... That is being completely disingenuous . You also tried to disguise the anomalies in the three lunar buggy photos I posted by posting DIFFERENT photos ... Why do I have to keep repeating this to you ? ... It's obvious that you are the one with the reading and comprehension problem , not I .... and I am very tired of your games . These threads are getting more and more bizarre. My apologies - Duane's posts are getting more and more bizarre. I've explained to you umpteen times how I stretched the photo - this was not to "disguise" anything - it was to make the detail more visible. As Craig stated the shadow is at a low viewing angle. Stretching the crop of the photo (it was actually vertically) simply makes it easier to see the general shape of the shadow - and it was no surprise that there was no anomaly present. I did NOT hide any anomaly that you had simply imagined - I showed it was non-existent. For you to keep on claiming that I've somehow manipulated the shadow to show something that isn't there is, well, just wrong. At least you admitted that I showed the shadow conformed to the position of the astronaut - you can prove it to yourself in MS Paint, like I keep on saying... save a crop of the relevant part, select Image, Resize, and set the vertical component to anywhere between 200 and 300% (I forget the exact value I used). Post the result here for everyone else to see I am not being dishonest. I'm not going to even bother explaining the lunar buggies photos, you're either a complete xxxx - and not a very good one as you are making a fool of yourself in this public forum - or you lack simple comprehension skills. I'm willing to give you the benefit f the doubt and go with the latter. In which case, I'll politely suggest you re-read this post again, more carefully this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 7, 2007 Author Share Posted February 7, 2007 Of course you're not going to try to explain the missing tire tracks in the lunar buggy photos ... and the reason why you're not going to explain it is because you can't . ... That is unless you want to alter some more photos to back up your lies . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 It's already been explained several times Duane, can't help it if you just don't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 7, 2007 Author Share Posted February 7, 2007 Do you mean your lame 'rebuttal' of the buggy tire tracks being covered up by bootprints ? ... No , I understand that perfectly ... Your reply to the phony trackless photos was just more nasa defender nonsense and you know it ... But if that's what you consider to be a reasonable explanation of why the tracks are not in those photos , then no wonder you believe the photos are real and that nasa really went to the moon ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Nice try as usual lamson .... Blame me for nasa's photographic errors ... and then pretend that I'm a hypocrite for not admitting to being wrong when I'm NOT wrong .Then you post nonsense like this ... "What Dave did was stretch the shadow in the horizontal direction TO BRING THE SHADOWS SHAPE TO A MORE NORMAL SIZE, a size that was MASKED by the low viewing angle in the original photo." Now that is funny .... Tell me lamson .. During your winter down time with nothing to do , does nasa pay you by the hour , the post , or by the job ? There is NO PHOTO ERROR. Im sorry for you that your limited intellectual ability does not permit you to understand SIMPLE PROBLEMS with perspective. Whats funny is that you keep yakking like a guy who understands photography when in truth you haven't a clue. What does that make you? Crackpot: most generally means a capriciously eccentric person. In various other uses, the term can mean: Pejoratively, the term Crackpot is used against a person, subjectively also called a crank, who writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about a particular subject, often in science, but is alleged to have false or even ludicrous beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 7, 2007 Author Share Posted February 7, 2007 The only ludricrous one here would be you lamson ... Being a professional photographer you should know that the Apollo photos are crude studio fakes ... Yet you continue to pretend that they were really taken on the moon . So what that makes you is either a CRACKPOT PHOTOGRAPHER or worse , a xxxx .... Or possibly both . Are you going to pretend to see tire tracks in the phony moon set photos too ? ... Or have you skipped trying to defend those silly looking photos because you know you can't ? .... Not without being made to look like the fools that Dave and Kevin are anyway . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Do you mean your lame 'rebuttal' of the buggy tire tracks being covered up by bootprints ? ... No , I understand that perfectly ... Your reply to the phony trackless photos was just more nasa defender nonsense and you know it ... But if that's what you consider to be a reasonable explanation of why the tracks are not in those photos , then no wonder you believe the photos are real and that nasa really went to the moon ! The way you keep phrasing that, I think you're misinterpreting my explanation. Not covered up by the bootprints. Destroyed by being walked over and around. The difference is that it's not the print covering the track, it's the lunar soil that's being kicked up with every step. You'll see the same thing in any apollo picture of an area with a lot of foot traffic, the soil will have a different texture due to the agitation and only the last few bootprints will remain. The other problem is the lack of detail visible when the sun is coming from behind the photographer. Shadows become hidden behind the things casting them, making it very hard to see the shape of ground in the uniformly colored soil. 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