Author Topic: How was Jack White's adjusting image parameters debunked?  (Read 13203 times)

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3126
Re: How was Jack White's adjusting image parameters debunked?
« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2016, 03:00:15 PM »
I was wrong, he came clean today
Quote
My issue is STRICTLY with the..... central portion of SUN,..... and the quality and aspect when picture is run through EXACTLY THE SAME protocol, .............. The pictures "allegedly" taken on the Moon don't have the.... central portion ....with the same qualities as you saw in the first group of pictures, where you and I ...KNOW... that we are looking at the REAL Sun.
Let me repeat that ! The ..... C_E_N_T_R_A_L P_O_R_T_I_O_N O_F T_H_E S_U_N. :))

The same parameters are Brightness -50% and Contrast +100%

In addition
Quote
The "so called Sun" on the Moon seems to be a lot bigger ( certain sign of proximity ) and the central portion, if you put aside the..... " don't bother me with the facts, I made up my mind already ".... "way of thinking", and put on your "thinking hat", has an uneven surface as far as light emitting, and generates MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, less LIGHT than the real Sun. That could not happen EVEN IF the Sun had been ....underexposed, let alone .... overexposed.

The size issue is probably with a different lens configuration.  The central portion, I don't see how changing image parameters "reveals to him a "different" Sun.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: How was Jack White's adjusting image parameters debunked?
« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2016, 04:53:38 PM »
Who came clean today? Jack White? I thought he was dead.
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3126
Re: How was Jack White's adjusting image parameters debunked?
« Reply #17 on: December 31, 2016, 05:10:42 PM »
Who came clean today? Jack White? I thought he was dead.

Yes Jack is dead, but one of his disciples(?), name unknown. 
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: How was Jack White's adjusting image parameters debunked?
« Reply #18 on: December 31, 2016, 05:36:25 PM »
Straydog (Duane Daman) was a disciple, but this person doesn't sound as abusive.
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3126
Re: How was Jack White's adjusting image parameters debunked?
« Reply #19 on: January 01, 2017, 08:59:41 AM »
No, (s)he is very polite, no name calling, verbal abuse as of yet.  But no citations to questions asked concerning Gemini, such as camera settings, lens, film, but that isn't unexpected, is it?
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: How was Jack White's adjusting image parameters debunked?
« Reply #20 on: January 02, 2017, 10:33:49 PM »
Straydog (Duane Daman) was a rabid disciple, but this person doesn't sound as abusive.

I added the bold for a more accurate description of Duane's Jack White infatuation.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3126
Re: How was Jack White's adjusting image parameters debunked?
« Reply #21 on: January 02, 2017, 10:55:55 PM »
...
I added the bold for a more accurate description of Duane's Jack White infatuation.

I saw some of Duane's posting on the education forum and you are correct.  there were a few guys that blasted both Jack and he in numerous posts.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3801
    • Clavius
Re: How was Jack White's adjusting image parameters debunked?
« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2017, 01:22:06 PM »
Jack White did have legitimate darkroom skills.  But he wrongly thought they would translate into analyzing digitally encoded photographs, about which he knew next to nothing.  And his failure at photogrammetry (which, ironically, has not much to do with the photography practiced by photographers) is well established.  Sadly it was upon these last two principles he based most of his conspiracy-mongering.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline HeadLikeARock

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: How was Jack White's adjusting image parameters debunked?
« Reply #23 on: January 03, 2017, 04:52:13 PM »
...
One of the best ones was the "tweaking" he did of images of the Sun (actually it may have been Percy). He claimed it showed that the Sun was actually a huge light-bulb: what he was actually looking at was the glare, not the disc of the Sun itself. You could prove this quite easily by showing photos where the glare of the Sun partly occluded an object in the foreground, e.g. the LM, proving it could not have been a massive light-bulb. Such refutations generally went ignored.
I seem to remember one like you describe, i.e. light bulb instead of the Sun, do you have an image where the glare is blocked by an object hand, instead of searching ALSJ?

There's a sequence from Apollo 14 that's quite handy. Check these 2 images out.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9305HR.jpg
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9306HR.jpg

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3126
Re: How was Jack White's adjusting image parameters debunked?
« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2017, 09:07:19 PM »
...
One of the best ones was the "tweaking" he did of images of the Sun (actually it may have been Percy). He claimed it showed that the Sun was actually a huge light-bulb: what he was actually looking at was the glare, not the disc of the Sun itself. You could prove this quite easily by showing photos where the glare of the Sun partly occluded an object in the foreground, e.g. the LM, proving it could not have been a massive light-bulb. Such refutations generally went ignored.
I seem to remember one like you describe, i.e. light bulb instead of the Sun, do you have an image where the glare is blocked by an object hand, instead of searching ALSJ?

There's a sequence from Apollo 14 that's quite handy. Check these 2 images out.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9305HR.jpg
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9306HR.jpg
The size does change as more of the glare is eliminated, thanks.

He hasn't written a response since I linked Frenet's image of he truck and barn.  He was so sure the aforementioned tweaking reduced the glare down to the real size of the A12 image, much bigger than the Gemini image.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline HeadLikeARock

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: How was Jack White's adjusting image parameters debunked?
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2017, 04:56:26 AM »
The size does change as more of the glare is eliminated, thanks.

He hasn't written a response since I linked Frenet's image of he truck and barn.  He was so sure the aforementioned tweaking reduced the glare down to the real size of the A12 image, much bigger than the Gemini image.

There are other images from the Gemini mission where the Sun looks different to the one with the 10 rays, and much more similar to how the Sun looks in the Apollo images.

For example, http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_g/G09/Maurer/full/S66-38510_G09-M_f.png

Without knowing a lot more about the cameras and lenses/filters used on Gemini it's difficult to know what causes these differences.

Offline Ian R

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: How was Jack White's adjusting image parameters debunked?
« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2017, 01:31:12 AM »
Three Hasselblad photographs of bright reflections exhibit the same halo-like reflection seen in shots taken of the Sun, which suggest the effect is clearly an artefact caused by the lens/internal camera optics:

AS11-40-5893
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/22078737161/in/album-72157657350941603/

AS17-138-21080
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21673713572/in/album-72157658984899346/

AS13-62-8973
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21787840768/in/album-72157659522448155/