Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.

[twik]

The specks you uncovered by Photoshop are obviously not stars, based on the fact that they change significantly in two photos taken in a short period of time. Stars couldn't do that. Therefore, the question must be, are they fake stars created by NASA, or mere artefacts of twiddling knobs in Photoshop. Since NASA never identified these specks as being stars, why would NASA include them at all? There would be no point in putting invisible stars into their photos, while claiming that stars didn't show up in them at all, in fact couldn't show up.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that they are not stars or deliberate fakes, they are artefacts of digitally manipulating the levels on multi-generation copies of the original photos until some pixels turn white.

If you still believe they could be stars, please explain your theory of why they change so much from one photo to the next. If you could relate the changes to the star field that actually would have been visible from the Moon at the time (with special equipment or by standing in deep shadow and letting one's eyes adjust), so much the better.

[Icarus1]

Why am I still debating this to people like you?

Because you're making mistakes and saying things that a real professional photographer would not make or say, and now trying to back away from them as if you hadn't made them.  No, Adobe Photoshop is not "just like using a darkroom."  I agree, when someone says he's downloaded digital photos from convenience sources on the Internet and thinks that fiddling with the sliders in Photoshop is equivalent to operations like pushing photochemical photography to reveal details in the latent image, that's just nonsensical.  And when he's talking about "stars," when the very first thing he should be thinking of is encoding or compression artifacts/noise or contamination of the dupe master, that's a very tell-tale thing around here.  As I said, you're not the first person to play this game.

Are you a failed Photographer?

Actually I'm a frequently consulted expert on the subject of Apollo photography.  I did a television show on the subject for Channel 4 back while you were still in school.  While I don't currently make my living by photography, I have in the past.  I also taught computer graphics at the University of Utah.  You may have heard of them -- most of the people who wrote Adobe Photoshop went to that school and are my friends.  My work on Apollo photography has been published in Science.  You may have heard of that too.  If paulknowlesphotography.com is your web site then it says you're a self-taught amateur who is turning his hobby into a business.  That doesn't impress me.  I did a stint as a wedding photographer.  I studied full-time for a year and apprenticed full-time for two more years with a credentialled professional before even attempting to practice it for pay (on film, using cameras that cost more than your car), which I did while I was studying engineering and computer science.  I later went on to design a few optical assemblies for scientific and medical photography.

You do not have the qualifications to analyze photography as you have attempted to do.  You are a self-taught amateur who has not been able to display the appropriate knowledge and background to understand why your original post is so very laughable.  Don't just stomp and whine because you got caught.  My advice to you was to not put on airs and listen carefully to what the well-trained and highly-experienced people here were telling you.  Instead you chose to double-down on your "expertise."  Your frustration is entirely of your own making.  Had you taken my advice, we wouldn't be in this predicament.

You have an excellent set of credentials claimed here Jay and off the bat, I'm simply going to accept them as being the Truth.  Why would I not?

No, that is website is not me.  I no longer have a website.  Although I still operate as a freelancer, my career in it almost ended 4 years ago when I invested 50 grand in a Chinese Chef who stole everything and threatened my partner and myself with a machete.  He was arrested at Gunpoint and we've struggled to rebuild our lives since.  As a Profession, meaning something I earn money at. I am a Photographer.  I also create video.

I've never claimed 'expertise' and I find myself again wasting time with these responses.  If you bothered to read thru this entire post, as is suggested I do regarding everything about space flight and Astro photography you might glean that I am not nor have I ever argued the case since it has been put forward with rational and proof.

this attack on my character is far far removed from my original pst and I'll suffer it no more.

I can only assume this is another case where the 'Conspirator' has been proven wrong and ran off with said 'tail between thy legs'... yet, you'd be a fool.

Kind Sincere Regards.

PS well done on Photoshop.  I couldn't do my job without it. 

[JayUtah]

I came here with a Conspiracy Concern.  Prove otherwise!

Gladly.  From your first post in this thread:

My initial belief is that of a Conspiracy to deceive.

My 'Friend' is a total Conspiracy Nut Job.

However, I found anomalies that for a moment, call me foolish or ignorant or lacking in Photographic knowledge and practice, suggested i may have something to consider.

I am calling you lacking in photographic knowledge and practice.  It led you to draw completely unsupportable assumptions regarding what your tools would reveal.  And upon that basis you leapt to the irresponsible conclusion that the photographs had been faked somehow because you couldn't reconcile what the shadows and the "stars" were telling you.

I have never once been angry here.

Nonsense.  You spewed profanity when people didn't believe -- and rightly so -- that you were a "professional photographer" as they understand the term.  They felt you had misled them about the breadth and depth of your understanding, and they where right to feel that way.  Give yourself whatever title pleases you, but don't profess expertise you don't have when telling people why you believe there was a conspiracy.

[Icarus1]

The specks you uncovered by Photoshop are obviously not stars, based on the fact that they change significantly in two photos taken in a short period of time. Stars couldn't do that. Therefore, the question must be, are they fake stars created by NASA, or mere artefacts of twiddling knobs in Photoshop. Since NASA never identified these specks as being stars, why would NASA include them at all? There would be no point in putting invisible stars into their photos, while claiming that stars didn't show up in them at all, in fact couldn't show up.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that they are not stars or deliberate fakes, they are artefacts of digitally manipulating the levels on multi-generation copies of the original photos until some pixels turn white.

If you still believe they could be stars, please explain your theory of why they change so much from one photo to the next. If you could relate the changes to the star field that actually would have been visible from the Moon at the time (with special equipment or by standing in deep shadow and letting one's eyes adjust), so much the better.

While not wanting to be rude Twik, I've already been over this.  there are now 16 pages on here with most of them repeating the same issues.  this has been a non-debate for a long time now.  Try reading it from start to finish if you want me to consider any other replies.

Thanks

[Icarus1]

I came here with a Conspiracy Concern.  Prove otherwise!

Gladly.  From your first post in this thread:

My initial belief is that of a Conspiracy to deceive.

My 'Friend' is a total Conspiracy Nut Job.

However, I found anomalies that for a moment, call me foolish or ignorant or lacking in Photographic knowledge and practice, suggested i may have something to consider.

I am calling you lacking in photographic knowledge and practice.  It led you to draw completely unsupportable assumptions regarding what your tools would reveal.  And upon that basis you leapt to the irresponsible conclusion that the photographs had been faked somehow because you couldn't reconcile what the shadows and the "stars" were telling you.

I have never once been angry here.

Nonsense.  You spewed profanity when people didn't believe -- and rightly so -- that you were a "professional photographer" as they understand the term.  They felt you had misled them about the breadth and depth of your understanding, and they where right to feel that way.  Give yourself whatever title pleases you, but don't profess expertise you don't have when telling people why you believe there was a conspiracy.

I can't argue with what you believe.  I stated very early on VERY early on that I have trouble getting down what I'm trying to say.  Maybe you missed it?

I can't offer you anything more.  Sorry.

[Abaddon]

Yours (not exclusively) was one that I found particularly rude and assuming.  Take is as something to learn from and move on.

Gillianren is on of the most unfailingly polite and generous posters on this forum.  If you're calling her rude, you really need to rethink your approach.  Being incessantly angry at being justly criticized is not going to make your case.

You came here as a conspiracy theorist.  That is not in question.  You professed expertise you did not have, and on the basis of that pretended expertise you insinuated a "conspiracy to deceive," citing a few long-debunked and often misconceived points amateurs bring up.  While you have indeed congenially accepted correction and participated meaningfully in the ongoing discussion, you still seem to be trying to save face in the form of pretending you didn't come here proposing a conspiracy theory.  You did, and it got shot down.  You can call yourself whatever you want -- "professional phographer," "photon wrangler," or whatever.  But if you profess expertise you do not have, you will get caught here.  Our regulars have a vast cross section of expertise.  Don't have a meltdown when you do get caught.

I came here with a Conspiracy Concern.  Prove otherwise!

My 'Friend' is a total Conspiracy Nut Job.  Lizards and all!  He sends me links all the time to the point of me being concerned about him.  He recently told me that it's not even worth his time trying to prove the Space Program is Fake, he simply Knows it!  I have already stated in here that I have tried to prove to him why there are no stars in space.  Dynamic range etc.  I know this!  but there must always be room for doubt for without it, we won't attempt to prove it.
In an attempt to prove something to HIM, I took two pics and tried to reveal faint details of stars.  However, I found anomalies that for a moment, call me foolish or ignorant or lacking in Photographic knowledge and practice, suggested i may have something to consider.  The 'Stars' had moved!!!!  It is Most Likely, they are NOT Stars at all.  Most probable.  but as I live and breath I cannot allow myself to say for certaintly that they are NOT Stars either.  I am not certain about anything.  I have never once been angry here.  I could be lying, but what can we prove?  I certainly do have problems communicating at times, especially using type!  If I have offended Gillianren I will re-read what she has posted to see if I can conscientiously remove my remarks.  for this I have no problem.

This is all that has happened here.  I've not disagreed with anyone about anything put forward.

Can open, worms everywhere.

I will be generous. This is yet another CT trope. "My friend". Who remains eternally anonymous.

Perhaps you really are not aware of this old CT tactic of making claims on behalf of "a friend". I doubt it.

If "a friend" is making such bovine claims, bring them here. Lets us deal directly with the claimant, who clearly is not you.

[Icarus1]

Is it possible to stop this thread now?

I think it's wasting time and life.

I must try and make light of this by suggesting I'm going back to my basement.  I'll know better next time and go straight to the Conspiracy forums instead and let them argue among themselves.  I've obviously come to the wrong place if I wanted self empowerment.

Thank you.

[JayUtah]

I've never claimed 'expertise' and I find myself again wasting time with these responses.

What's the point of telling everyone right off the bat that you were a "professional photographer" if that wasn't meant to impart an air of authority to the argument you were about to lay out, which used photography as its evidence.  If it wasn't relevant, why mention it?  And the only way it could be relevant would be to impart the notion, "I know what I'm talking about."  Turns out you don't.

this attack on my character is far far removed from my original pst and I'll suffer it no more.

Then apologize for misleading the forum and we can leave this ugliness behind.  As has been explained to you several times, people come here all the time to engage in debates over Apollo evidence.  And they lie all the time.  They lie about what the evidence is.  They lie about what expertise they have.  They lie about their motives for asking questions or challenging the evidence.  I agree that places you in an unfortunate position.  But you need to formulate your argument in a way that doesn't inadvertently misstate the facts or mislead your readers.  Since you're new here and don't have a reputation to fall back on, the safe assumption for a reader to make here is that any misleading statements you make were made intentionally, and that you should be treated as a "hostile" claimant.

There are two (and perhaps more) rules that every conspiracy theorist follows who comes here:

(1) They all take a very similar and characteristic approach.
(2) They all believe they're the first to try that approach, and that it won't be picked up on.

[Icarus1]

Yours (not exclusively) was one that I found particularly rude and assuming.  Take is as something to learn from and move on.

Gillianren is on of the most unfailingly polite and generous posters on this forum.  If you're calling her rude, you really need to rethink your approach.  Being incessantly angry at being justly criticized is not going to make your case.

You came here as a conspiracy theorist.  That is not in question.  You professed expertise you did not have, and on the basis of that pretended expertise you insinuated a "conspiracy to deceive," citing a few long-debunked and often misconceived points amateurs bring up.  While you have indeed congenially accepted correction and participated meaningfully in the ongoing discussion, you still seem to be trying to save face in the form of pretending you didn't come here proposing a conspiracy theory.  You did, and it got shot down.  You can call yourself whatever you want -- "professional phographer," "photon wrangler," or whatever.  But if you profess expertise you do not have, you will get caught here.  Our regulars have a vast cross section of expertise.  Don't have a meltdown when you do get caught.

I came here with a Conspiracy Concern.  Prove otherwise!

My 'Friend' is a total Conspiracy Nut Job.  Lizards and all!  He sends me links all the time to the point of me being concerned about him.  He recently told me that it's not even worth his time trying to prove the Space Program is Fake, he simply Knows it!  I have already stated in here that I have tried to prove to him why there are no stars in space.  Dynamic range etc.  I know this!  but there must always be room for doubt for without it, we won't attempt to prove it.
In an attempt to prove something to HIM, I took two pics and tried to reveal faint details of stars.  However, I found anomalies that for a moment, call me foolish or ignorant or lacking in Photographic knowledge and practice, suggested i may have something to consider.  The 'Stars' had moved!!!!  It is Most Likely, they are NOT Stars at all.  Most probable.  but as I live and breath I cannot allow myself to say for certaintly that they are NOT Stars either.  I am not certain about anything.  I have never once been angry here.  I could be lying, but what can we prove?  I certainly do have problems communicating at times, especially using type!  If I have offended Gillianren I will re-read what she has posted to see if I can conscientiously remove my remarks.  for this I have no problem.

This is all that has happened here.  I've not disagreed with anyone about anything put forward.

Can open, worms everywhere.

I will be generous. This is yet another CT trope. "My friend". Who remains eternally anonymous.

Perhaps you really are not aware of this old CT tactic of making claims on behalf of "a friend". I doubt it.

If "a friend" is making such bovine claims, bring them here. Lets us deal directly with the claimant, who clearly is not you.

I am aware that people use the term 'my friend' while hoping to gain answers to a delicate or shameful topic, removing themselves from it; yes.

Why assume that is the case here?  we don't make assumptions in engineering do we?  The bridge would fall down!

[Icarus1]

I've never claimed 'expertise' and I find myself again wasting time with these responses.

What's the point of telling everyone right off the bat that you were a "professional photographer" if that wasn't meant to impart an air of authority to the argument you were about to lay out, which used photography as its evidence.  If it wasn't relevant, why mention it?  And the only way it could be relevant would be to impart the notion, "I know what I'm talking about."  Turns out you don't.

this attack on my character is far far removed from my original pst and I'll suffer it no more.

Then apologize for misleading the forum and we can leave this ugliness behind.  As has been explained to you several times, people come here all the time to engage in debates over Apollo evidence.  And they lie all the time.  They lie about what the evidence is.  They lie about what expertise they have.  They lie about their motives for asking questions or challenging the evidence.  I agree that places you in an unfortunate position.  But you need to formulate your argument in a way that doesn't inadvertently misstate the facts or mislead your readers.  Since you're new here and don't have a reputation to fall back on, the safe assumption for a reader to make here is that any misleading statements you make were made intentionally, and that you should be treated as a "hostile" claimant.

There are two (and perhaps more) rules that every conspiracy theorist follows who comes here:

(1) They all take a very similar and characteristic approach.
(2) They all believe they're the first to try that approach, and that it won't be picked up on.

you would know the answers to your own questions if you read the entire thread.

Thanks

[JayUtah]

Is it possible to stop this thread now?

You can stop contributing at any time and it will likely die away.  The past several pages seem mostly to be you trying to save face for a failed argument.  It's okay if you're on a journey to discovering this body of knowledge.  But don't try to tell people you didn't come here as a conspiracy theorist arguing a conspiracy theory.  Just say, "I was wrong; thanks for correcting me."

I've obviously come to the wrong place if I wanted self empowerment.

Yes, you have.  Claims of hoax or conspiracy are not coddled here.  They are tested with extreme rigor and from a collective background of vast knowledge.  If you came here seeking approval, you went about it entirely wrong.  To continue, you purported to have found an anomaly in a pair of photographs and you proffered the explanation that the photos may have been hoaxed by adjusting the lighting.  Part of the basis of that argument was a profession of expertise, lending credibility to your manipulation of the photos digitally.  Turns out that profession of expertise was misleading because you needed to know more than you did.  The proper response would have been "I guess there's a lot I still need to know," not repeatedly insisting your self-imposed title means something.

[Icarus1]

Is it possible to stop this thread now?

You can stop contributing at any time and it will likely die away.  The past several pages seem mostly to be you trying to save face for a failed argument.  It's okay if you're on a journey to discovering this body of knowledge.  But don't try to tell people you didn't come here as a conspiracy theorist arguing a conspiracy theory.  Just say, "I was wrong; thanks for correcting me."

I've obviously come to the wrong place if I wanted self empowerment.

Yes, you have.  Claims of hoax or conspiracy are not coddled here.  They are tested with extreme rigor and from a collective background of vast knowledge.  If you came here seeking approval, you went about it entirely wrong.  To continue, you purported to have found an anomaly in a pair of photographs and you proffered the explanation that the photos may have been hoaxed by adjusting the lighting.  Part of the basis of that argument was a profession of expertise, lending credibility to your manipulation of the photos digitally.  Turns out that profession of expertise was misleading because you needed to know more than you did.  The proper response would have been "I guess there's a lot I still need to know," not repeatedly insisting your self-imposed title means something.

No, YOU are becoming the entirely Wrong response.  This thread was conceded long ago with my acknowledgement of it's truth and my error in assumption of Stars.  I t is all there to be read and revealed in 18 pages.

Thanks

[JayUtah]

you would know the answers to your own questions if you read the entire thread.

My questions were rhetorical, and raised points you have not addressed.  You're trying to say you never claimed any expertise.  In fact you did, and now you're trying to weasel away from it.  This ongoing dishonesty is why no one trusts you yet.  You found out your professed expertise was irrelevant to what you needed to know in order to make the proper study.  You seem to think your late admission that you lack the appropriate expertise is tantamount to never having said you did.  You think that lately disavowing any conspiracy theory is tantamount to never having expressed a belief in one.  It's okay to posture your experience here as a journey from one point to another in your understanding and belief.  But trying to rewrite the early stages of the argument, here in the later stage, conveys the impression that you're not entirely honest in your approach.  It's not my credibility that's on the line here.  If you aren't a conspiracy theorist and don't want to keep being mistaken for one, I'm telling you what you need to do in order to avoid that.

[Icarus1]

you would know the answers to your own questions if you read the entire thread.

My questions were rhetorical, and raised points you have not addressed.  You're trying to say you never claimed any expertise.  In fact you did, and now you're trying to weasel away from it.  This ongoing dishonesty is why no one trusts you yet.  You found out your professed expertise was irrelevant to what you needed to know in order to make the proper study.  You seem to think your late admission that you lack the appropriate expertise is tantamount to never having said you did.  You think that lately disavowing any conspiracy theory is tantamount to never having expressed a belief in one.  It's okay to posture your experience here as a journey from one point to another in your understanding and belief.  But trying to rewrite the early stages of the argument, here in the later stage, conveys the impression that you're not entirely honest in your approach.  It's not my credibility that's on the line here.  If you aren't a conspiracy theorist and don't want to keep being mistaken for one, I'm telling you what you need to do in order to avoid that.

I may read this later.  I'm exhausted.

Thanks

[JayUtah]

This thread was conceded long ago with my acknowledgement of it's truth and my error in assumption of Stars.

Then why are you still so concerned with saving face?  It's one thing to say "This is what I now believe."  It's another thing to say, "I never had those old beliefs."  By all means change your mind, but own the change.