Photographic Challenge Options

[Jack White]

Indeed, Duane...the clowns do not tire of firing crooked arrows.
Nobody yet has offered proof that the feet of a standing photographer
are NOT directly under his head, and that any shadows of his body
necesarily will lead directly to his feet...thus TOWARD THE CENTER
OF THE BOTTOM OF AN UNCROPPED PHOTO. They produce tricked
up images showing the shadow can point in another direction, but
it is impossible, since the shadows MUST POINT TOWARD WHERE
THE FEET MEET THE GROUND. They fail to comment that most
rational people agree with me.

These guys are like Nazis...wanting me to confess when I am
NOT GUILTY.

Happy new year!

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Indeed, Duane...the clowns do not tire of firing crooked arrows.
Nobody yet has offered proof that the feet of a standing photographer
are NOT directly under his head, and that any shadows of his body
necesarily will lead directly to his feet...thus TOWARD THE CENTER
OF THE BOTTOM OF AN UNCROPPED PHOTO. They produce tricked
up images showing the shadow can point in another direction, but
it is impossible, since the shadows MUST POINT TOWARD WHERE
THE FEET MEET THE GROUND. They fail to comment that most
rational people agree with me.

These guys are like Nazis...wanting me to confess when I am
NOT GUILTY.

Happy new year!

Jack

Looks like Monty Python was right about you Jack. Not only can't you read but you don't understand the very basics of photography. Pretty sad for someone who claims expert status.

BTW, just who are these 'rational" people?

[Craig Lamson]

They produce tricked up images showing the shadow can point in another direction, but
it is impossible, since the shadows MUST POINT TOWARD WHERE
THE FEET MEET THE GROUND.
Jack

Well Jack this is a VERY SERIOUS CLAIM..in effect you are saying we are lying agout the images we have posted. A serious claim like this MUST be backed by evidence. Either document your claim or remove it and post a public apology

Mods, please hold Jack to the burden of proof in this instance.

[Dave Greer]

I'd like to create a new category in the forum awards for the MOST DEBUNKED THEORY. This theory of Jack's is the hands down winner. It reminds me of the Knights who say Ni from Monty Python's Holy Grail. Despite being rendered completely limbless, it keeps believing it can bite yer legs orf.

[Flogs dead horse] Jack, do the decent thing and admit you made an honest mistake. [/Flogs dead horse]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11665506@N00/58513669/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rabinal/284023849/
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/53405301.jp...84831B75F48EF45
http://www.sylviastuurman.eu/sitemap/foto/IMG_6248.jpg
http://redstategreenhouse.com/images/Small...t2_BlogSize.jpg

[Evan Burton]

Indeed, Duane...the clowns do not tire of firing crooked arrows.
Nobody yet has offered proof that the feet of a standing photographer
are NOT directly under his head, and that any shadows of his body
necesarily will lead directly to his feet...thus TOWARD THE CENTER
OF THE BOTTOM OF AN UNCROPPED PHOTO. They produce tricked
up images showing the shadow can point in another direction, but
it is impossible, since the shadows MUST POINT TOWARD WHERE
THE FEET MEET THE GROUND. They fail to comment that most
rational people agree with me.

These guys are like Nazis...wanting me to confess when I am
NOT GUILTY.

Happy new year!

Jack

Now let me understand this correctly: are you saying that the various responders faked / altered their images, or are you saying they were not taken under the specified conditions? If they were not under the specified conditions, please detail EXACTLY how images are to be taken and how they relate to Apollo. If you are saying we faked them somehow, I would ask you to address your claims directly to John S, as it is a serious claim to make against a fellow Forum member.

Let me be clear about my position on this: I believe you have said something that can be proven wrong by anyone with a camera. I believe you are mistaken in your claims. I want to be sure of your EXACT conditions and EXACTLY how they relate to Apollo, so that we can set up similar shots to test your claim.

Once we have your conditions - and how they relate to Apollo - we can get various people to test the conditions and provide data so it can be determined if what you claim is correct or not.

I need exact data so that neither side can claim there has been wrongdoing. please remember that if you set a condition, you should explain why that condition is important to your claim. If required (and I think it may well do) I'll set up another thread.

Please also note that I am making John and Andy aware of this thread. This is something that should be easily be proven or disproven. I am asking people to consider a refusal to accept this challenge as an admittance that you were incorrect in your assessment.

[Len Colby]

I’ve never really understood this claim which has been repeatedly debunked.

Perhaps Jack or Duane can elucidate

- If it were impossible on the Moon why would it be possible on a set on Earth?

- If it were due to multiple light sources why don’t we see multiple shows of each object? If you are go with this explanation please produce a photo showing such a shadow due to multiple light sources where there is only one shadow per object.

[Jack White]

A CHALLENGE FOR THE TIRESOME CHALLENGES FROM PROVOCATEURS:

1. Produce a photo which shows the shadow of the photographer pointing AWAY from
the bottom center of the photo.

2. In the same photo SHOW THE FEET OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER.

3. If the shadow of the photographer DOES NOT LEAD TO HIS FEET, explain why.

4. If the shadow of the photographer DOES LEAD TO HIS FEET, explain why the
shadow of an erect photographer is CROOKED.

Jack

[Kevin M. West]

Why would you want feet in the picture? That doesn't match any of the apollo photos in question.

[Craig Lamson]

A CHALLENGE FOR THE TIRESOME CHALLENGES FROM PROVOCATEURS:

1. Produce a photo which shows the shadow of the photographer pointing AWAY from
the bottom center of the photo.

2. In the same photo SHOW THE FEET OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER.

3. If the shadow of the photographer DOES NOT LEAD TO HIS FEET, explain why.

4. If the shadow of the photographer DOES LEAD TO HIS FEET, explain why the
shadow of an erect photographer is CROOKED.

Jack

Sadly Jack White, self-proclaimed photographic expert sets standards that are impossible to reach.
I see you are playing the old "red herring" trick in a sad attempt to deflect from your your failed position.

You made a claim, that the images presented by those who have debunked you are "tricked up". This is a serious claim. Back it up with evidence or withdraw it.

Empirical evidence that shows you wrong can be found here:

Prove these images anre "tricked up" or withdraw your claim.

http://www.infocusinc.net/apollo.htm

Mods. White has called me a liar and I demand his proof or his retraction.

[Jack White]

Why would you want feet in the picture? That doesn't match any of the apollo photos in question.

Because my claim which is being disputed here is that
A PHOTOGRAPHER'S SHADOW IN A PHOTO MUST POINT
TOWARD HIS FEET. Those who oppose my study say that
this is not necessary. The feet of an erect photographer
are under his camera. If the shadow does NOT POINT
TO THE POINT WHERE THE FEET ARE, the photo is not
genuine. A very simple concept.

Jack

[Jack White]

A CHALLENGE FOR THE TIRESOME CHALLENGES FROM PROVOCATEURS:

1. Produce a photo which shows the shadow of the photographer pointing AWAY from
the bottom center of the photo.

2. In the same photo SHOW THE FEET OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER.

3. If the shadow of the photographer DOES NOT LEAD TO HIS FEET, explain why.

4. If the shadow of the photographer DOES LEAD TO HIS FEET, explain why the
shadow of an erect photographer is CROOKED.

Jack

Sadly Jack White, self-proclaimed photographic expert sets standards that are impossible to reach.
I see you are playing the old "red herring" trick in a sad attempt to deflect from your your failed position.

You made a claim, that the images presented by those who have debunked you are "tricked up". This is a serious claim. Back it up with evidence or withdraw it.

Empirical evidence that shows you wrong can be found here:

Prove these images anre "tricked up" or withdraw your claim.

http://www.infocusinc.net/apollo.htm

Mods. White has called me a liar and I demand his proof or his retraction.

Of course the standards are impossible to reach. THAT IS MY CLAIM. I am
glad to see you admit that I am correct! But the provocateurs have been
claiming that it is NOT necessary for the shadow to POINT TOWARD THE
LOCATION OF THE FEET. Look at my study on Aulis. That is the point I make.
My study is constantly MISREPRESENTED.

Jack

[Kevin M. West]

Why would you want feet in the picture? That doesn't match any of the apollo photos in question.

Because my claim which is being disputed here is that
A PHOTOGRAPHER'S SHADOW IN A PHOTO MUST POINT
TOWARD HIS FEET. Those who oppose my study say that
this is not necessary. The feet of an erect photographer
are under his camera. If the shadow does NOT POINT
TO THE POINT WHERE THE FEET ARE, the photo is not
genuine. A very simple concept.

Jack

Pop quiz Jack:



This is a top down view, the red dot is the photographer, the green lines are the field of view of his camera, the blue lines are drawn on the ground. What will the blue lines look like in the picture he takes, assuming he holds the camera level (not pointed at his own feet):

a) They will converge on the bottom center of the image
b) They will converge below the bottom center of the image
c) They will be parallel
d) They will converge at the top of the image
e) They will converge above the image

This is an open book test, I encourage you to cheat by taking a camera, laying out the lines on the ground with tape, and trying this yourself. Try pointing the camera slightly up and down, and tilting it to the side a bit. Check out the results you get with the camera in different orientations (but always standing up straight with the camera roughly above your feet). You may learn something!

When you can answer the question correctly, you will realize why your study is wrong.

[Dave Greer]

A CHALLENGE FOR THE TIRESOME CHALLENGES FROM PROVOCATEURS:

1. Produce a photo which shows the shadow of the photographer pointing AWAY from
the bottom center of the photo.

2. In the same photo SHOW THE FEET OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER.

3. If the shadow of the photographer DOES NOT LEAD TO HIS FEET, explain why.

4. If the shadow of the photographer DOES LEAD TO HIS FEET, explain why the
shadow of an erect photographer is CROOKED.

Jack

A CHALLENGE TO JACK WHITE

1. Produce an APOLLO photo that shows the shadow of the photographer pointing AWAY from the bottom centre. In the SAME photo show the FEET OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER.

2. Have the guts to admit your study is in error and withdraw it from Aulis.

[Craig Lamson]

A CHALLENGE FOR THE TIRESOME CHALLENGES FROM PROVOCATEURS:

1. Produce a photo which shows the shadow of the photographer pointing AWAY from
the bottom center of the photo.

2. In the same photo SHOW THE FEET OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER.

3. If the shadow of the photographer DOES NOT LEAD TO HIS FEET, explain why.

4. If the shadow of the photographer DOES LEAD TO HIS FEET, explain why the
shadow of an erect photographer is CROOKED.

Jack

Sadly Jack White, self-proclaimed photographic expert sets standards that are impossible to reach.
I see you are playing the old "red herring" trick in a sad attempt to deflect from your your failed position.

You made a claim, that the images presented by those who have debunked you are "tricked up". This is a serious claim. Back it up with evidence or withdraw it.

Empirical evidence that shows you wrong can be found here:

Prove these images anre "tricked up" or withdraw your claim.

http://www.infocusinc.net/apollo.htm

Mods. White has called me a liar and I demand his proof or his retraction.

Of course the standards are impossible to reach. THAT IS MY CLAIM. I am
glad to see you admit that I am correct! But the provocateurs have been
claiming that it is NOT necessary for the shadow to POINT TOWARD THE
LOCATION OF THE FEET. Look at my study on Aulis. That is the point I make.
My study is constantly MISREPRESENTED.

Jack

Your standards are impossible because they do not occur inthe Apollo images in question.
I've always said you are correct, that the shadow of a photographer must begin at his feet. This is simply a red herring on your part.


YOUR FALSE CLAIM IS THAT THE SHADOW OF A PHOTOGRAPHER IN BACKLIGHT MUST POINT TO THE BOTTTOM CENTER OF THE FRAME.

This claim of yours is not being misrepresented and has been shown to be false by empirical evidence. I have posted such evidence. You have claimed it faked and that I am a liar. I demand you offer evidence to supprt your claim, or withdraw your claim and admit your error.

[Dave Greer]

A CHALLENGE FOR THE TIRESOME CHALLENGES FROM PROVOCATEURS:

1. Produce a photo which shows the shadow of the photographer pointing AWAY from
the bottom center of the photo.

2. In the same photo SHOW THE FEET OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER.

3. If the shadow of the photographer DOES NOT LEAD TO HIS FEET, explain why.

4. If the shadow of the photographer DOES LEAD TO HIS FEET, explain why the
shadow of an erect photographer is CROOKED.

Jack

Complete red herring on your part Jack, as pointed out by Craig.