"Nathan Jones" wrote in message
...
|
| So what if Percy said it first? I give him credit for his work
| in my FAQ.

This is not a matter of proper credit or of plagiarism. What did you do to
ensure that Percy was correct in his claims? I test all claims, whether or
not I agree with the implication of the claim. I have tested Percy's claims
and I find them not to be supportable. I have attempted to contact Percy
through numerous avenues to ask him to reconcile his claims with my
findings, and I find him to be highly evasive.

Yes, it is quite appropriate for anyone to borrow ideas from another, and it
is customary to give credit for those ideas, as you have done. But when
those ideas are questioned, it becomes your responsibility -- as a proxy and
advocate for those ideas and their proponents -- either to take additional
steps to verify the ideas, or to disavow them. I obtain my ideas from many
sources, a few of which I subsequently discover to be unreliable. When that
occurs, I correct my beliefs.

| doesn't seem to know much about lighting. I have yet to show
| his arguments to a professional photographer who doesn't
| immediately fall down laughing at them.
|
| So you say.

Yes, so I say. You claim that David Percy must know a lot about
photography. What have you done to test that claim? I have tested it by
questioning him directly, by having experts of my acquaintance question him
directly, and by testing his claims empirically. I have also asked the
opinions of other experts.

| Nathan Jones doesn't know much about lighting,
|
| Uh Oh! Back to your usual self so soon Windley?

I'm not sure what you mean by "usual self". It is not a personal attack to
note deficiencies in someone's argument, who appears not to be an expert or
to have the requisite knowledge to support the argument. This has been the
case with you on several points.

| I guess you must be really peeved that I finally trounced
| both your arguments that time.

Why are you so anxious to appeal to my emotions?

I'm not sure what you believe you've "trounced". You were able to convince
me that the aft equipment bay cover was not a likely reflector for
AS11-40-5903, and so I graciously withdrew the argument and changed my web
site accordingly.

You argued that heiligenschein was not a likely source either, but this was
never an argument I had made. In that case you "trounced" a straw man.

Finally you admitted that if the surface had been swept by the DPS plume,
that the apparent brightness would be affected. Then you shifted your
argument to *whether* that surface had been swept. You offered a scenario.
In fact, you offered it twice; and my response to it is still that you have
not accounted for all the observations.

Now, after having admitted that texture differences can affect apparent
brightness, you still seem to argue that from uniformity of incident light
follows certain expectations of apparent brightness of surfaces. If you are
now emphasizing that you know the effects terrain and texture have upon
apparent brightness, then I am at a loss to reconcile that concession with
your expectation of uniform brightness. Will you please reconcile them?

| Field's argument about the area around the hotspot being like
| a beach or volcanic is bunkum and you know it.

I'll be the authority on what I know and don't know. You may kindly refrain
from attempting to pin thoughts and emotions on me.

As for the validity of the argument, I see no reason why it cannot be a
contributory effect. The lunar soil is expected and observed to be composed
of fields and fragments displaying different optical effects. While the
comparison between beach sand and volcanic sand is likely an exaggeration of
quantity, it was apparently intended only to illustrate the qualitative
aspects of the argument. I don't expect the difference in optical
characteristics in lunar regolith literally to be equivalent to the
difference between beach sand and volcanic sand.

| And so the incident lighting is.

Agreed. However, it does not follow that surfaces so lighted should display
uniform brightness -- even flat surfaces, and we know the lunar surface not
to be flat. If this is your claim, it has no scientific basis. If it is
not your claim, what exactly is your claim?

| Remember there is no weather on the Moon to change the daylight.

I never claimed weather was a factor. Nor did I at any time argue that
incident light was not uniform. In fact, I was careful to assert my belief
in the uniformity of incoming light (e.g., the solid-angle method) every
time I raised the issue of surface contour.

| What you have decided to talk about are the surface properties
| of the Lunar landscape.

I am attempting to understand and evaluate your apparently conflicting
claims regarding how the lunar surface should appear in photographs. In
doing this I have described what are widely recognized as the determiners of
apparent brightness of surfaces in photographs. I am asking you what you
have done to eliminate those common predictors before concluding that some
sort of studio arrangement must have been used to create the zones of
varying apparent brightness of the lunar surface. That is not an attempt to
change the subject. It is an attempt to discover how thoroughly you have
investigated the subject.

| Photography has been in the family for two generations.

Whether it has been or not, it does not seem to have taught you anything
about the practical photometry that applies to photography.

| You have caused me to correct you too many times.

I am aware of only one time where I have conceded a point to you, the
aforementioned issue of the aft equipment bay cover. There are likely many
times when you believe you may have "corrected" me, but you may be referring
only to times when you merely restated your conclusion without addressing
the refutation or offering new information.

| Don't expect any further dialogue with me after this Windley.

I have gotten quite used to the lack of meaningful dialogue with you. I
have consistently raised numerous issues with your findings, and you have
continued persistently to ignore them in favor of your predetermined
conclusion. I find this considerably detrimental to your claim to have an
open mind on the subject of the questions you raise. It is more consistent
with running away from uncomfortable facts and evading responsibility for
your public claims.

You may, if you wish, refrain from further comment on my postings, but that
has no bearing on whether I continue to comment on yours. You may address
or ignore my comments as you see fit.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org