*NOTE* Skip this, unless you are strangely intrigued by the ridiculous UP/TU saga. I've posted enough stuff for sensible folks to make their own decisions, adn hopefully improve their images and videos.

This is simply a response to a few of TU's 'points'.

I won't bother quoting the entire TU post for two very simple and obvious reasons. (Readers can judge for themselves by re-reading it at their leisure if they wish.)

First, she has COMPLETELY avoided addressing a single criticism of her images, (or any stament I've made contradicting her very inaccurate photographic claims).

Second, the vast majority of her post appears to be insults and childish comments, like:
"claims to be a teacher of photography"

Let's just address that single one - the rest I choose to ignore. If anyone ELSE doubts my claim of being a photography teacher after reading all the stuff I have posted here, post an email address and I'll send you a copy (text only) of a photography course booklet *I* wrote. (You won't get the most recent copy, as the copyright is worth something to me on this document - but it will be plenty to get the idea). I'm happy to post selected bits of it here if anyone asks nicely - it is full of tips and hints on general imaging.

I can guarantee the booklet is *mine*, and of course anyone in possession of it could check it online for plagiarism.

By the content, and by the stuff I have posted here, you will be able to see whether I am what I claim. Sorry, TU, despite all the pretending that goes on here, that particular fact is NO pretense.

The offer does *not* apply to TU herself (in simple spite. (O:)

Let's remember that this is the same TU who claimed her nighttime images (showing blurred unlit buildings) were shot at 1/1000 of a second. This is the same TU who said 'don't use an IR filter', then showed she didn't know what nightshot mode was (it means no IR filter) by telling me off for using it!! This is the same TU that didn't have a clue what a polarizer did. (I can go on, but won't.)

Once again, here is a quick example of MY still nighttime photography:
[link to www.geocities.com]

(I'm happy to post the raw original of that if anyone asks nicely, but it will have a copyright notice on it.)

Can TU show something *remotely* similar?

And I would note the following - TU says this:
"He has defamed posters personal integrity"

Yep, I call liars LIARS, fools FOOLS, misinformation providers... But that isn't defamation. (O:

"He even tried the same tactics on my You Tube channel."
TU, I DARE you to post my comments EXACTLY as they were written. How many dares are you going to RUN from?

And why wouldn't you leave my commments there to embarrass me, if they were so flawed? Explain why you would not simply address the issues, in a similar way as I have done..
Now for anyone watching this ridiculous charade, I would invite you to examine the post by "DJBluefox" made here:
[link to www.youtube.com]

Read the comment carefully. Do you recognise the tone? Who do you reckon djbluefox might be?

[link to www.youtube.com]

Hmm. 57 years old, in the USA. Where have we heard that before...?? Anyway, I'm not suggesting this is TU, oh no, not me. But isn't life *full* of remarkable coincidences...
(O:

>Up, I do not owe you an apology for standing up to you.

No, 'course not. I actually prefer the way you continue to simply dig the holes even deeper as you go. Discerning readers can make their own judgement.. DO carry on!

NOR should you post that original image I asked for.
You KNOW what will happen if you do that.

NOR should you show us what hapopened when you manually focused your camera. You know that won't look good in regard to your claims so far.

I would have thought an honest person would have no problem with doing those very simple things. I think it's fair to say that most folks here *do* now understand that getting the images in focus is important, and that using properly controlled methods to determine movement is also a good thing. I don't see many other folks posting video footage that are suggesting the object is moving, but they can correct me if I'm wrong, and easily prove it by showing the background.

In regard to doing these simple things...
*I* did.
*I* posted videos and examples, taking great care to duplicate the conditions and type of tripod/camera that a typical user might have.
*I'm* happy to post more examples, if asked politely.

But TU WON'T. What should one infer from that?

The rest of TU's 'points' have been covered adequately before, and if anyone else wants further clarification, feel free to ask. As other folks have seen, I'm very happy to address any issues sensibly raised and love talking about my favorite topics.

TU seems to have dropped any pretense of being specific, and is now merely repeating insults and claims with no supporting evidence. And of course, she is refusing to do the two simple things that would show she was correct:

1. Show what happens when she manually focuses
2. Post the original of one of the blurred building images she *still* claims were taken at over 1/1000.

Anyone who knows even the most basic facts about photography knows that the second one is a LIE.



Sleep well, TU.

Just as a final aside, there are several UFO videos and images around (not on this thread) that I find intriguing, and that I *can't* explain.

(Yet. (O:)

One day I might point them out to folks on these forums...

It's strange, but the really good ones never seem to get referred to here. I don't quite understand that.