What becomes of old 'friends'..

[twik]

Don't you just love expattaffy1, apparently I am the worlds greatest hacker and if I disagree with comments on WooTube I send people Viruses to their computer, hack into their e-mail accounts and steal their WooTube passwords.

Taffy's video has been reported to YouTube for deformation of character, but can you slander against an alias? My contention is that many people are aware of my real identity and that I have never hidden it, the fact that twatty is too stupid to work out my ID is no excuse.
The allegations have been repeated by another wootube idiot by the name of Mr Strange his video has also been reported. Anyone wishing to flag these videos are more than welcome.   

It seems a common thread of most conspiracy theorists that their opponents have hacked their computers, to the extent of deleting files that proved their case or keeping them from posting coherent and cogent arguments of their position (but not stopping them from posting complaints that their computers are compromised). While I suppose some of these claims are deliberate excuses, I get the sense that such posters scoff at internet security and hang around odd websites, downloading any file that piques their interest without even a virus scan. Their computer security seems as jumbled as their thoughts on Apollo.

[AtomicDog]

Has anyone run across Duane "Straydog" Daman lately? He was always good for a laugh, but his viciousness got him banned everywhere he went - even from a site he himself founded!

[bknight]

I had an exchange with him about a year ago, he checked out my information listed in the Education Forum.  He still is in the HB camp BUT he was at least civil with me.

[bknight]

I had and exchange with Duane about a year ago.  He checked my information listed in the Education Forum.  At least he was civil to me.


Duplicate post, sorry

[onebigmonkey]

So, one expat and his collection of sycophants are now claiming that some photos were only made recently (thanks to his examination of metadata).

His claim about an image of Cernan in the LRV was ridiculously easy to dispose of thanks to me having several vintage publications showing the image. His current favourite, however, is AS17-134-20506, which he reckons was made after 2007.

I've found a listing of that photo signed by Harrison Schmitt with a COA from 2005, but I know that will be dismissed as a fake. I've also found the next image in the magazine (20507) in a 1973 publication 'Apollo 17 at Taurus Littrow', but that isn't the specific image and I don't own the paper copy.

Anyone got a version of 20506 in a book or magazine article dating from before 2007?

As an aside, is it worth having a thread debunking his often repeated nonsense, as responses to them on youtube can get deleted or buried in abuse?

[ajv]

Would he accept a "study" by Jack White apparently dated 2016-07? on the aulis site?

[Edited to add: AS17-134-20506 is a glorious image isn't it?]

[Jason Thompson]

Leaving aside the question of why such images would be made so recently in the first place, and exactly how he drew his conclusion, you could point him to the Apollo 17 Mission Reports published by Apogee Books in 2002, which includes a CD-ROM of all the Hasselblad images, naturally including that one.

[onebigmonkey]

Would he accept a "study" by Jack White apparently dated 2016-07? on the aulis site?

[Edited to add: AS17-134-20506 is a glorious image isn't it?]

I spotted that, but annoyingly the 'copyright' claim coincides with taff's claimed year of creation. so that's his get out. I did look on the education forum to see if Jack's originals are on there, but unfortunately I couldn't find a forum post dated before 2007 with it in.

[onebigmonkey]

Leaving aside the question of why such images would be made so recently in the first place, and exactly how he drew his conclusion, you could point him to the Apollo 17 Mission Reports published by Apogee Books in 2002, which includes a CD-ROM of all the Hasselblad images, naturally including that one.

Well his question is based on stupidity, naturally, and an assumption that mention of photoshop in metadata automatically implies a fake. I did consider the Apogee books, but hadn't thought that they were published so long ago. They tricky bit now is to get a copy with the CD still included!

[smartcooky]

Well his question is based on stupidity, naturally, and an assumption that mention of photoshop in metadata automatically implies a fake. I did consider the Apogee books, but hadn't thought that they were published so long ago. They tricky bit now is to get a copy with the CD still included!

Of course, the bigger fail is ignorance of the fact that film doesn't have metadata!

[onebigmonkey]

Well his question is based on stupidity, naturally, and an assumption that mention of photoshop in metadata automatically implies a fake. I did consider the Apogee books, but hadn't thought that they were published so long ago. They tricky bit now is to get a copy with the CD still included!

Of course, the bigger fail is ignorance of the fact that film doesn't have metadata!

I know, what are they trying to hide...

[BertieSlack]

As an aside, is it worth having a thread debunking his often repeated nonsense, as responses to them on youtube can get deleted or buried in abuse?

Why not?

[Abaddon]

A crop of it appears in this 1996 lecture

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/lecture22.html

[Kiwi]

So, one expat and his collection of sycophants are now claiming that some photos were only made recently (thanks to his examination of metadata).

...His current favourite, however, is AS17-134-20506, which he reckons was made after 2007.

I can't understand his point. How can metadata possibly prove the age of an image that was originally recorded on film? About the only thing metadata can tell is the date that that particular digital image was made.

Nevertheless, I have a 1999 version of AS17-134-20506 in the original Apollo Lunar Surface Journal on CD-ROM (copyrighted 1999). Its copy of AS17-134-20506 is a low-quality scan that had the old Targa number instead of the AS number. In this case the Targa number is 20117457 and the file's date/time is 30/03/1999 / 11:35:58, which might be the date Eric Jones saved it.

JayUtah knows much more about the Targa scans than I do, but I think they might have been the first scans made from the originals or perhaps duplicates of them. Some of the black-and-white scans were made from the prints I've mentioned occasionally over the years -- prints that might have been made by a printer who smoked in his darkroom, producing the heavily fogged prints with black bleeding into the lighter shades that we see in Michael Light's book "Full Moon".

Send the hoax-believer to the Lunar and Planetary Institute's "Apollo Image Atlas",
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/
and tell him to read the pages in the first two links, "Foreword" and "Scanning and Processing Information" to see the ancient method that was used, and then click on
1. 70mm Hasselblad
2. Apollo 17
3. Magazine B / AS17-134-20376 to AS17-134-20532
...and view all 157 images from the film.

If he can then come up with some forceful argument that the images were not made on the moon and not in the 1970s, he might just be indicating that he has either (1) Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, or (2) more ego than brains, or (3) both. :-)

[onebigmonkey]

So, one expat and his collection of sycophants are now claiming that some photos were only made recently (thanks to his examination of metadata).

...His current favourite, however, is AS17-134-20506, which he reckons was made after 2007.

I can't understand his point. How can metadata possibly prove the age of an image that was originally recorded on film? About the only thing metadata can tell is the date that that particular digital image was made.

Nevertheless, I have a 1999 version of AS17-134-20506 in the original Apollo Lunar Surface Journal on CD-ROM (copyrighted 1999). Its copy of AS17-134-20506 is a low-quality scan that had the old Targa number instead of the AS number. In this case the Targa number is 20117457 and the file's date/time is 30/03/1999 / 11:35:58, which might be the date Eric Jones saved it.

JayUtah knows much more about the Targa scans than I do, but I think they might have been the first scans made from the originals or perhaps duplicates of them. Some of the black-and-white scans were made from the prints I've mentioned occasionally over the years -- prints that might have been made by a printer who smoked in his darkroom, producing the heavily fogged prints with black bleeding into the lighter shades that we see in Michael Light's book "Full Moon".

Send the hoax-believer to the Lunar and Planetary Institute's "Apollo Image Atlas",
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/
and tell him to read the pages in the first two links, "Foreword" and "Scanning and Processing Information" to see the ancient method that was used, and then click on
1. 70mm Hasselblad
2. Apollo 17
3. Magazine B / AS17-134-20376 to AS17-134-20532
...and view all 157 images from the film.

If he can then come up with some forceful argument that the images were not made on the moon and not in the 1970s, he might just be indicating that he has either (1) Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, or (2) more ego than brains, or (3) both. :-)

You know that, I know that, anyone with half a brain knows that.

Taff can't comprehend the notion that Photoshop is not synonymous with fake. He can't even see the flaw in his own argument when he states that an image can be photoshopped for one of two reasons: to enhance an image or to fake one - it doesn't occur to him that the former is even a remote possibility.

He simply does not believe the image existed prior to the date he claims it was created based on that metadata, so the best proof, as I've done in the past, is to show him pictures on paper with a provable provenance. The Schmitt signed image I mention above is (according to the seller) a magazine photo - I'd love to have a copy of that magazine.