michaelstmark (August 20, 2008 at 4:40 pm)

( ok we all make the odd slip-up but this guy's spelling errors were in another universe until I pressured him into proof-reading his comments) .... and has on occasion been shown to invent fictitious quotes in order to belittle the opposing party. Not forgetting his swift and sudden moving of the goalposts (on the very same day) of the debate topic, when he knew he was defeated on ultimate cause - from starbursts per se, to his retreat position of "starbursts in photos" ...

michaelstmark (August 20, 2008 at 4:28 pm)

... 9.SWEARS out loud in mocking manic laughter at the introduction of the valid term "light interference" into the debate... " LIGHT INTERFERENCE, LOL, LOL" "LIGHT INTERFERES WITH WHAT ??? LOL LOL" And yet only a couple weeks later he quietly sneaks into his comments "I don't deny light interference is a factor" 10. swears he has the intelligence and integrity to be taken seriously as a pro photographer when he can't work out how to run a simple spell checker program through his comments....

michaelstmark (August 20, 2008 at 4:22 pm)

.... 7.... that "waves of light" is an intelligible term, when light itself IS a waveform - just as radio is a waveform. But do we say "waves of radio"? LOL 8. swears blue that the bladed aperture diaphragm in the camera lens is the ultimate cause of starbursts, yet when we search "ultimate" cause, its definition is "last-most" cause or "final" cause. Yet Lamson himself has already fully admitted the B.A.D. is NOT the final link in the causation chain in the production of starbursts. ....

michaelstmark (August 20, 2008 at 4:18 pm)

... 4.... starbursts only exist "in photos" and never in the lens and infers that when looking through an SLR viewfinder you're NOT also looking through the camera lens! 5....by his own pet names and terms which have no definition in relation to any known and accepted photographic or physical optics terminology on the subject discussed. 6 swears that he only employed his gibberish in order to set "traps" in debate ( ie he was never serious about the debate on SBs in the first place ) ....

michaelstmark (August 20, 2008 at 4:14 pm)

Well in that case we'll clarify the Clownson files for you. Craig Lamson, the foul-mouthed "photo pro'" SWEARS... 1. ..his "empiric tests" are valid when he doesn't use the same camera/lens as he's purortedly testing for. 2. ..his "empiric tests " are valid, when later saying there was no need for them in the first instance. 3. .. his "empiric tests" are valid, when he uses reflections off an old soda bottle to test for reflections off an astronaut visor. ....

MRphotogod (August 20, 2008 at 2:31 am)

We have had the debate mickery and you lost. Thats the end of the story. Its over because you can't: 1 Refute my empirical testing. 2 Refute my debunking of his vid. 3 Prove his "ultimate cause of starbursts in photos" claim. 4 Offer a SINGLE weblink that states the ultimate cause of starbursts in photos is LI. 5 Show us starburst "within the lens" at the point of his "ultimate cause. Your vid, your reputation and your character are now in the dustbin. Game over. Goodbye.

michaelstmark (August 19, 2008 at 8:14 pm)

Ronald MacLamson... 1. Can't figure out to use a basic spellchecker program. 2. Thinks photos of starburst light can be taken without the light being in the lens! 3. Does his "empiric testing" on different cameras & lens's than the ones he's trying to illustrate! 4. First laughs mockingly at the mention of light interference being involved in starbursts - then later admits it is! 5. Thinks the root cause of a light artifact is NOT the source light! Gaga grandpa needs a head doctor - pronto.

michaelstmark (August 19, 2008 at 7:50 pm)

Into the Clownson files it goes then! - Half a dozen invitations to a debate using proper and widely-accepted photographic and physical optics terminology instead of your gobbledygook gibberish ... and you squirm then turn them all down like the ignorant game-playing coward you undoubtedly are. Says it all about the vociferous simpleton Mr Craig " starburst light doesn't exist in the camera lens "(LOL ) Lameson. He couldn't empirically test a bucket of water with a plastic duck in it.

MRphotogod (August 19, 2008 at 6:10 pm)

We have had the debate mickery and you lost. Thats the end of the story. Its over because you can't: 1 Refute my empirical testing. 2 Refute my debunking of his vid. 3 Prove his "ultimate cause of starbursts in photos" claim. 4 Offer a SINGLE weblink that states the ultimate cause of starbursts in photos is LI. 5 Show us starburst "within the lens" at the point of his "ultimate cause. Your vid, your reputation and your character are now in the dustbin. Say goodnight Gracie....

michaelstmark (August 19, 2008 at 5:10 pm)

Wow. A 4th generation copy of a previous Lameson post! Are you not going to take up my invitation to a civilized debate on starburst images using widely acknowledged and accepted scientific and photographic terminology? I don't understand what your problem could possibly be, oh great "god of photography" lol. Unless of course you realize you've been caught in your own little gobbledygook trap. So. Would that be a yes or a no, Lamson?