Evan Burton Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 If you are telling the truth , why are you even hesitating about this ? ... Here is your golden opportunity to humiliate not only Jarrah , but me as well ... So go ahead and do it ... PROVE ME WRONG and I will gladly admit my mistake here and on YouTube ... Well Duane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 Evan ... Jack has never STRETCHED OR ALTERED a shadow in any of his Apollo studies to 'win' an argument ... Jack's use of photoshop and cropping the phony Apollo photos is done for one purpose only ... to enhance the anomalies , so we can see them better ... Jack does NOT bend or STRETCH shadows or alter the photos in any respect . Really? But he will bend or stretch an image to make a point, in other words, to illustrate the thrust of his argument: Bottom right-hand corner. "Oddly, they can be made to match by computer stretching." So, once again: either they are both dishonest or they are both illustrating their points. Which is it Duane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 I've received permission from Jenny Heller to publicise our correspondence, with two provisos:(a) her email address is blanked out ( there is an amendment to the last line With that in mind, here is her response and my initial email to her. I've deleted the line of her response that she wanted changed in blue - email addresses are blanked out in red. For readability, here is a transcript of her reply. I've added in the text that she wanted changed from her original email, it's shown in italics. Hi Dave,What really fascinates me, is the amount of interest that conspiracy theories re: the moon landing generates. Movies, documentaries etc it is a fascinating phenomena in itself. You should take into consideration the background to Jarrah’s work, he made this documentary as one of his class assignments, as such students have to create a piece with little or no resources at their disposal. Jarrah is particularly interested in things technical, and based most of his works that particular year, around the concept that the lunar landing was faked. He required footage of a so called ‘expert’ to support the story line he wished to persue, and as a teacher (at the coledge at that time) he asked if I would be willing to do the interview for his assignment. I agreed as he did not have access to a ‘real authority’. The reality is that I am not even a professional photographer, the interesting thing is that when a person is portrayed as an expert on film, people tend to believe it (I am a fine arts teacher). What would be useful to you would be to get an analysis done by a true optical / physics specialist who could factor in things like: lense distortion, surface refraction, light angle, light source distance, surface curvature etc. I am sure that your is evidence that a similar photo can be taken with one light source that is equivatent [sic], can mount an argument to disprove Jarrah’s but it would require a specific type of lens, which is claimed not to be the lens used by Nasa for these photos. Regards Jenny Now that you have access to the whole email, it should be clear why I didn't want to print it without permission, regardless of the legal aspect. Jenny was a teacher at Jarrah's college - his video is a classroom assignment. Since I thought it might be construed as possibly contravening the confidentiality of the teacher/student relationship, I decided to err on the side of caution. Jenny obviously has no problem with her statement (except for revising her last sentence). I really hope this is the end to the accusations of lying. The thread has been dragged off topic for too long. Dave ... Of all the games you have ever played , this one has to be the most dishonest of all ... Did you really think by posting this out of context e-mail here , that you would squeak out of this so easily ? ... You, your photo 'evidence' and your pathetic attempts to humliate Jarrah White , will soon be exposed for what they are ... I knew you had e-mails and that's why I pushed you so hard to foward them on to Jarrah ... You have painted a distorted one sided picture here , taken completely out of context . You demanded an apology from me about this issue on YouTube , but I noticed you didn't do the same here ... I know why you didn't do that here and I also know why you want to drop this for good ... and all I can say is to that is , not so fast pal , because the real fun is yet to come and you are going down . Evan ... Sorry , but you can't compare Jack's studies , which attempt to expose the Apollo photographic fraud , to Dave's dishonest games , which attempt to cover up the photographic fraud ... Why is it that you feel the need to turn every discussion here into another character assassination of Jack ? ... I can understand why you fear him but it's ridiculous to drag his work into this ... This is NOT about Jack ... This is about a scam that Greer ran and is about to be exposed for . Actually , thanks for posting Jack's study here .. I hadn't seen this one before ... I will be able to use this one in my upcoming tribute to him on YouTube . As for Jack's study you posted here , he did not bend an anomalous upright and backwards shadow , in an attempt to have it match the leaning forward astronot supposedly causing the shadow . .. Instead , he showed how phony that photo of the LM really is . Lamson ... If Dave bent the shadow to show what it really looked like , then that astronot was a really contortionist who was wearing his PLSS on his stomach ! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 Dave ... Of all the games you have ever played , this one has to be the most dishonest of all ... Did you really think by posting this out of context e-mail here , that you would squeak out of this so easily ? ... You, your photo 'evidence' and your pathetic attempts to humliate Jarrah White , will soon be exposed for what they are ...I knew you had e-mails and that's why I pushed you so hard to foward them on to Jarrah ... You have painted a distorted one sided picture here , taken completely out of context . For crying out loud, this is getting ridiculous. This is the email you have been demanding I post for several days. Now that I have permission and actually post it, it's out of context? I've never had any intention of "humiliating Jarrah", I was trying to verify the photographic credentials of the expetr in his video (Jenny Heller). Hang on - you KNEW I had the emails, yet accused me several times of lying about it and playing mind-games? Why would you do that Duane? Have you any idea how manipulative and scheming that makes you look? As far as "mind-games" goes, that one takes the biscuit. You demanded an apology from me about this issue on YouTube , but I noticed you didn't do the same here ... I know why you didn't do that here and I also know why you want to drop this for good ... and all I can say is to that is , not so fast pal , because the real fun is yet to come and you are going down .Duane - you made it abundantly clear no apology would be forthcoming. If I asked for an apology from you here you would probably misconstrue it as a "mind-game". Since it's becoming clearer that you have some kind of ulterior motive to all this (knowing I had the email, yet accusing me of lying anyway), your apology would be like most of your posts - meaningless.Evan ... Sorry , but you can't compare Jack's studies , which attempt to expose the Apollo photographic fraud , to Dave's dishonest games , which attempt to cover up the photographic fraud ... Is this really how your reasoning works? "Jack stretches a photo - he's a good guy. Dave stretches a photo - he's a bad guy." Why is it that you feel the need to turn every discussion here into another character assassination of Jack ? ... I can understand why you fear him but it's ridiculous to drag his work into this ... This is NOT about Jack ... This is about a scam that Greer ran and is about to be exposed for . The only character assassination going on here is your ridiculous attempt to smear me as a dishonest xxxx - after you have ADMITTED you knew I was telling the truth all along, yet accused me of lying. Hoist by your own petard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 Dave ... Once again you are only showing how fast you can tap dance ... Sorry , but it's not going to work this time .... I asked you to forward the e-mails to me or to Jarrah but you refused to do so ... That let me know you were hiding something ... So since asking you to forward them didn't work , I thought accusing you of not really having them might do the trick , and you would then be forced to forward them on to the only person who would be able to verify their content ... I'm glad that Jenny gave her permsion to let you post her e-mail here .. I especially enjoyed that last line . As I stated before , this is far from over and you will be exposed for the dishonest game you played here and on YouTube . As far as how my reasoning works , you got that right ... Jack is the good guy and you are the bad guy , and I will prove it .... Jack did not stretch a shadow to try to make it match the object it was suppossed to belong to .. You did that ... and as far as that deception goes , Lamson can tap dance just as fast as you can ! ...LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 Duane, no one here is 'tap dancing' but you. Dave clearly stated from the start that he would not make the email public until he got permission from the author. And guess what, that's exactly what he did. You are the one who is playing games, making acusations you knew were false. For the 1000th time, the shadow wasn't stretched to make it match the object, it was stretched to correct for perspective so you could see what a top-down view of the shadow would look like. It wasn't distorted in any way other than scaling in one dimension, as was stated in the original post. There was absolutely no deception involved other than your false claims that it was skewed, bent, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 (edited) ... Jack is the good guy ... Well that is not what the mounting evidence seems to show. Not only has it been shown over and over agan that Jack lacks the most basic knowlege of how photography works, it also appears that his word is worthless as well. On more than one occasion Jack White has stated that when he has been shown to be wrong he will offer a correction. As has been shown here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8510 Jack has been proven wrong by incontestable emperical evidence, most recently by the author of the youtube video series you seem so taken with. A "Good Guy" would do the honorable thing and admit his error. Jack however has done no such thing. He can't refute the evidence, has not retracted his claim...he is just ignoring it in hopes it will simply go away. It will not. Edited April 23, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 I asked you to forward the e-mails to me or to Jarrah but you refused to do so ... That let me know you were hiding something ... So since asking you to forward them didn't work , I thought accusing you of not really having them might do the trick , and you would then be forced to forward them on to the only person who would be able to verify their content ... Congratulations Duane. In this one small paragraph you have outed yourself as dishonest, scheming and manipulative. As I stated before , this is far from over and you will be exposed for the dishonest game you played here and on YouTube .Duane - you've just admitted you were the one playing dishonest games all along.As far as how my reasoning works , you got that right ... Jack is the good guy and you are the bad guy , and I will prove it .... Jack did not stretch a shadow to try to make it match the object it was suppossed to belong to .. You did that ... and as far as that deception goes , Lamson can tap dance just as fast as you can ! ...LOL Can't wait for that one (!) PS any chance of publishing that professional photographic analysis you were getting done 2 months ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 (edited) More fast tapping dancing I see ... and this time it's a chorus line time step ! ... This is all very entertaining guys , but none of you are very good dancers and you're all doing the same old tired routines too ... Let's see , we have Craig , stage right , tapping and whistling that same ole' tired tune of .... LET'S ALL CHARACTER ASSASSINATE JACK !!! Then we have Kevin, stage left , tapping and singing that old favorite , I DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT ANY OF THIS IS ABOUT BUT I'M GONNA STICK MY NOSE INTO THIS ANYWAY !! And then we have our main attraction and star of the show , postbaguk Dave , center stage and in the main spotlight , tapping , singing and whistling his favorite tune of ... I'M NOT THE BAD GUY HERE , YOU ARE !!! ... I'M JUST AN INNOCENT VICTIM IN ALL OF THIS !!!!!! And since LARRY , CURLY and MOE here , are all spinning plates on sticks at the same time , let's send in some more clowns ... Anybody else want to join in on the fun ??? Well , seeing as this has now become a three ring circus , I think I will tell some moon jokes ... Hey , anyone hear the one about Banjo Buzz on the moon ? ... That's right folks ... Most people know about Alan Shepard sneaking that golf club onto the LM to hit some balls on the lunar surface , but not too many people know that Buzz Aldrin took a banjo to the moon and posed with it while Neil took one of the most famous moon pictures ever ! Here's Banjo Buzz , posing for one of the most famous photos in the history of all mankind ! But here's the real kicker folks ! .... After Buzz got finished playing a few tunes , he laid his banjo down next the flag . The good news is , he left it on the moon so we could all find it later , along with the other trash the astronots left behind . The bad news is , it's too small to be seen in any photograph taken today !!!!! .... ROTFLMAO !!!!! Oh , and postbaguk Dave asked ... " PS any chance of publishing that professional photographic analysis you were getting done 2 months ago?" Well postbaguk Dave , I was saving that for my upcoming YouTube video , of some of the silliest Apollo photos ever taken on the moon set .. but just for you I will be happy to post it here ... In fact I will make it a post topic , so everyone can tap dance to that one too ! .. How about that for some real fun !?!? Edited April 24, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Okay. The matter of the e-mail has dragged on for long enough. Duane has made his points, Dave has made his. There is enough of it through the thread for people to make their own conclusions about the matter. Since it is not a matter of this forum, I'd direct EVERYONE to drop the subject now (and I say this with my Mod hat on). I consider it verboten. If you want to discuss it further, take it to another forum or do it via PM. If one party raises the topic again, then the other party is advised NOT to respond to it but to report it to a Mod. If ANY of the two parties raise the matter in a post, I'll consider it a violation; no further warning. Once again - either discuss it via PM or take it off the Forum. Duane, I am not trying to "character assassinate" Jack. I'm simply pointing out that Jack has done the same things as Dave - altered images to illustrate his points. As long as you show an original image and say what you have done, then I see no dishonesty in that. Trying to pass off an altered image as an original image I'd consider dishonest - but I am not aware of any time that either Jack or Dave has done that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 I agree that it was regretable that Dave's e-mail debacle was ever brought to this forum by him ... and I look forward to it being resolved on the forum it originated from.... So instead of posting any further information about this here , I will take your advise as a moderator Evan , and be happy to send PM's to everyone here of the final results . Okay , back on topic then .... Can anyone tell me how the PLSS ended up on astronot Dave Scott's stomach , in this photo where his shadow has been stretched to allow us all to see more clearly that all is not well with this particular Apollo picture . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Can you please illustrate where you think his stomach (and arms, legs, head, etc) are in the shadow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 Which shadow ? ... The original backwards, upright faked shadow by nasa whistleblowers , or the altered bent faked shadow by your friend postbaguk ? Dave made the claim that the shadow wasn't really put in the photo backwards ... I just didn't know how to interpret this photo properly .. But if that's really true , then Astronot Scott is wearing his PLSS on his stomach ... The whole point being is that the shadow is obviously backwards .. and in Dave's version , he made that fact even more obvious by stretching it , in an attempt to disguise the fact that the shadow doesn't match the object it's suppossed to belong to . It's kind of tough to do a pretty tap dance to this one , isn't it Kevin ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 Which shadow ? ... The original backwards, upright faked shadow by nasa whistleblowers , or the altered bent faked shadow by your friend postbaguk ? Dave made the claim that the shadow wasn't really put in the photo backwards ... I just didn't know how to interpret this photo properly .. But if that's really true , then Astronot Scott is wearing his PLSS on his stomach ... The whole point being is that the shadow is obviously backwards .. and in Dave's version , he made that fact even more obvious by stretching it , in an attempt to disguise the fact that the shadow doesn't match the object it's suppossed to belong to . It's kind of tough to do a pretty tap dance to this one , isn't it Kevin ? Not really - it's quite obvious to me and others that the shadow is not at all anomalous. Let's approach this from a different direction - why don't you show us all what the shadow SHOULD look like, and why. 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