Keith Laney at Ed Mitchell's forum

[JayUtah]

http://www.edmitchellapollo14.com/ph...opic.php?t=226 , on page 2 of the thread.

[Glom]

Wow, you were chatting with Edgar Mitchell. That's so cool! I was just reading a bit of A14SJ.

[JayUtah]

Ed Mitchell happily chats with anyone who wants to.

[Glom]

He spoke to me. A man, who has walked on the moon, who has seen what only 17 other men have ever seen, who flew the most excellent spacecraft ever to an area never before visited, spoke to me.

[The Bad Astronomer]

I would once again like to point out that I would rather tear my own head off than argue lunar reconnaissance against Jay.

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer

I would once again like to point out that I would rather tear my own head off than argue lunar reconnaissance against Jay.

Quite an interesting way with words you have.

[JayUtah]

Keith Laney is one of Richard Hoagland's minions. Now I understand that he has some legitimate expertise in digital imaging and associated sciences. So one must proceed carefully. But in this case Laney is simply wrong. It looks to me like he has been confronted before on the issue of image quality, and he's got a pat answer. He's fully confident in the quality of his own scans, but in this particular case the confidence is not justified. I verified that the image Harald linked to was indeed those recent scans that were made of the original transparencies, which opened up a whole new vista of detail.

Apparently Laney didn't pay very close attention to Harald's photo. Otherwise I think he'd have seen that it's much better than his. That approach seems common in the Hoagland camp; they just assume they're better informed and better equipped than anyone who criticizes them. But it's mostly smoke and mirrors. They so rarely encounter anyone who can see through their arguments.

[PhantomWolf]

with the image http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5954HR.jpg what is the bright blue dot?

[CincySpaceGeek]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

with the image http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5954HR.jpg what is the bright blue dot?

:-? I could be wrong but I'd venture a guess and say it's some stray light caught at a weird angle and bouncing around inside the Hasselblad (sp?). If the lens has a UV coating, it may be what's giving it it's blue tint.

[JayUtah]

You mean the bright blue streak? It's one of a dozen ways in which light can do funny things inside a compound lens. Any time your phase angle is about 135 degrees or more you'll start getting artifacts like that. Think of it as a precursor to what happens in photos like -5935 and -5936. It's also why the Hubble can't be pointed within 45 degrees of the sun.

You have light reflecting between lens elements. You have light reflecting off the inside surfaces of the lens barrel. You have halation (internal reflection) within lens elements. You also have scatter from the lens surface. No matter how finely ground a lens is, there will always be striations from the polishing process. When light (e.g., sunlight) is very bright and shines directly through the lens, these patterns scatter the light in geometric ways that derive from the polishing pattern. That scatter, and the reflections I mentioned, become strong enough to expose the film when they are caused by sunlight. You have to understand that they occur in all photography, but under favorable lighting conditions they aren't bright enough to compromise the photo. If this photo had been shot on Earth in the same situation, the blue streak would have been swallowed up by the blue sky.

If I ventured to guess, this particular pattern is caused by scatter from the polishing, simply because it looks subjectively to me like it's trying to echo the polishing geometry. It's blue because blue light scatters better than longer wavelengths. That's why the sky is blue and why sunsets are red.

[Joe Durnavich]

You guys need to be careful with anything that can be taken as an insult or even in a condescending tone. C-shank and Keith look to be those types of conspiracists that use anything like that as a "Get Out of the Argument Free" card. Since they cannot deal with the facts, they need excuses like that to exempt themselves from answering your objections.

Of course, they are insulting you left and right, but the purpose of that is to shift the argument off the facts onto the people involved in the debate.

[JayUtah]

Agreed, but Harald was neither insulting nor condescending. He made a reference to the classic case of pareidolia. And he pointed out that it's natural for the human mind to fill in details where data lacks.

Laney's closing word, "p-taak", is a derogatory insult in the contrived Klingon language. The literal translation varies, but none of them is appropriate for this board. That's how frankly childish he's being.

Over on the alt.astronomy newsgroup there's a guy posting under the name of "Mad Scientist". He seems never to have met an oddball theory he didn't like. He posted the debunked Apollo 16 UFO photo, which led to a discussion of Timothy Good's Above Top Secret in which Good tries to tie flying saucer claims to NASA high-ups. I pointed out that Good's supposed higher-ups like Maurice Chatelain and Otto Binder did not, in fact, have much (if any) role at NASA. Mad S. immediately began to accuse me of "insulting" Good and "insulting" him. Turns out it appears he doesn't distinguish between "insult" and "refute".

Thankfully that kind of irrationality is fairly apparent, even in Laney's case.

[Joe Durnavich]

but Harald was neither insulting nor condescending

I fully agree, but I had in mind trying to view your responses from the conspiracists twisted viewpoint. Notice how they took your "LOL": "And if you're just going to respond with LOL Jay, don't bother responding at all." That is clearly someone who desperately needs any excuse possible to shift focus off of your thorough arguments.

Over on the alt.astronomy newsgroup there's a guy posting under the name of "Mad Scientist". He seems never to have met an oddball theory he didn't like.

Yes, I've been lurking in those discussions, along with the one about the effects of the Mars rovers' spectral filters. (I just don't understand why these avid amateur photo analysts never develop an understanding of color balance in photography and digital imaging. Keith Laney is surprised too at the color balance difference between his dupe image and the original transparency. Heck, I am an amateur photo analyst too, but the concepts sink in over time.)

Your discussion with Mad Scientist, in fact, got me thinking a bit about debate strategy with conspiracists. He seems to be especially adept at moving the discussion off the issues and facts and onto what he perceives are insults and attacks on himself and those he follows. It is very difficult to keep the discussion on track, because even if you resist the urge to ratchet up the emotional level, other posters may not, and you end up losing control of the debate.

[JayUtah]

Occasionally I orchestrate a statement that contains an intellectual element and an emotional element -- not insulting, but certainly subjective. Or sometimes it will contain a directly applicable element and a "meta" element (i.e., a discussion of some related point of logic or rhetoric). By paying attention to which element your interlocutor chooses to respond to, you can get an idea of why he's talking to you. People debating out of resentment or envy (i.e., I want to appear smart too) ironically tend to respond to the emotional content. As you note, even something as mild as "fringe theory" can be interpreted as an insult. In the second case, contrarians tend to respond to the meta argument, trying to make it an abstract study in logic instead of a meaningful investigation.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

You mean the bright blue streak?

No, if you look in the crater, just at the edge of the shadow there is a bright blue dot. It looks like a blue light or even a flame standing out against the shadow, though I'm pretty sure it isn't. If it was a digital image I'd say it was a bad CCD, but since it's from film I'm not really sure to what it is, though I guess it could be associted with the blue streak in the sky.

[Irishman]

Question Jay - you correct Keith Laney by saying he has a transparancy, not a negative. However, it is clear he has a 3rd or 4th generation duplicate, not the original. (How could he? It is in a vault.) Thus, isn't it possible he has a negative from the duplication process, i.e. a photo taken of the projected transparency?

[JayUtah]

Anything's possible, but it doesn't make sense for him to have a negative. You can make a copy of a transparency by contact-printing it with reversal film. The result is a transparency closely resembling the original. Making a copy using negative film doesn't get you much.

[die Nullte]

Over on the alt.astronomy newsgroup there's a guy posting under the name of "Mad Scientist".

Wow! I've just been reading this guy's explanation as to why Venus is so bright in the morning sky. He's disputing science that has been around since, oh, Copernicus, in favor of some business about "electromagnetic changes caused by llumination changes in the sun which is being triggered by extra-solar events." As usual with these types, when cornered by someone who knows what they're talking about, he detours the discussion into endless invective.

[JayUtah]

I think Mad Scientist is a provocateur. The lengths to which he goes to be disliked seem to bear that out.

[Joe Durnavich]

However, it is clear he has a 3rd or 4th generation duplicate, not the original.

It is amazing how much more highlight and shadow detail there is in the original compared to Keith's version, especially in the ALSCC. Comparing these two versions shows how contrast builds up with generations, clipping the highlights and shadows. Keith probably will still prefer his version because it is easier to "bring out" odd rock shapes in it due to the stretched contrast and overall softness.

[Bamf]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Now I understand that [Keith Laney] has some legitimate expertise in digital imaging and associated sciences. So one must proceed carefully.

Your understanding is incorrect. Keith tries hard to pass himself off as a digital imaging expert, and every time someone repeats the claim that he's an "image analyist", "imaging specialist" or "imaging expert", they're just lending further credence to his story. In fact, he's an amateur with no training or education and there's a vast quantity of evidence that shows he's completely ignorant of the processes he uses and that he's just twiddling knobs in software he doesn't understand until things look pretty. He's no more an imaging specialist than anyone else who owns a copy of photoshop and downloads pictures off the internet.

[JayUtah]

Your understanding is incorrect. Keith tries hard to pass himself off as a digital imaging expert, and every time someone repeats the claim that he's an "image analyist", "imaging specialist" or "imaging expert", they're just lending further credence to his story.

Thanks for the heads-up. It's certainly not my goal to perpetuate nonsense. I saw his name mentioned by NASA publications in a favorable light having to do with some other analysis. Since I don't know much about Laney firsthand, I had to infer from that favorable mention. I know, of course, that he's an associate of Richard Hoagland, and that does not speak well of him. I can usually tell after some conversation whether someone is legitimately skilled, but so far Laney hasn't spoken on-topic enough for me to form an opinion. He has, however, behaved like other Hoaglandites, which is to "dig in" and claim superiority when challenged.

[Anla'Shok]

Welcome to the board Bamf.

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by Anla'Shok

Welcome to the board Bamf.

Bamf is mentioned on the BA website here.

[Anla'Shok]

Originally Posted by ToSeek

Bamf is mentioned on the BA website here.

Is this that Bamf or someone who glommed onto that alias after reading Hoagland's board?

Either way am I wrong in welcoming them to the BABB? Isn't anyone who conducts themselves in a responsible/respectable manner welcome? Just by the alias do we know what is in their heart?

As I myself am new here I was just being nice, as my welcome to this board was cool at best.

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by Anla'Shok

Is this that Bamf or someone who glommed onto that alias after reading Hoagland's board?

Either way am I wrong in welcoming them to the BABB? Isn't anyone who conducts themselves in a responsible/respectable manner welcome? Just by the alias do we know what is in their heart?

As I myself am new here I was just being nice, as my welcome to this board was cool at best.

I was just pointing out a fact. Originally I had a parenthetical remark about "Bamf (or someone with the same nickname)" but took it out because I thought it was obvious.

I have no objection to your offering Bamf a welcome. And if he is who I think he is, I'm glad he has joined us.

[Bob B.]

Originally Posted by Anla'Shok

As I myself am new here I was just being nice, as my welcome to this board was cool at best.

I'm sorry if you got a cool reception to BABB. Let me do my part to make amends by given you a belated welcome. And yes, any one who comes here and conducts themselves in a civil manner deserves a warm welcome, so let me also welcome Bamf to the forum. On the other hand, I don't think To Seek was necessarily saying that Bamf did not deserve your greeting. He just pointed out that Bamf is mentioned in BA's Web site; I don't think we can read anything more into it than that at this time.

EDIT: Oops, I see To Seek already responded (darn thing rolled over to a new page!).

[Anla'Shok]

ToSeek and Bob B. - "Sorry about that Chief, it wont happen again!" (right!)

The light glows dimily now, thanx for the 411. 8-[

Bob B. thanx for the belated welcome.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Originally Posted by Anla'Shok

ToSeek and Bob B. - "Sorry about that Chief, it wont happen again!" (right!)

"And Loving it ..."

[The Bad Astronomer]

bamf! Cool. If you have a few minutes (or a lot more), I would be very interested in hearing a more full account of what transpired between you and RCH...