Duane Daman Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 (edited) Kevin .... In this situation , I don't believe the picture of the fence is appropriate to the discussion of astronaut's shadows . Then you don't understand the geometry of the situation at all. Since you seem to be so determined to prove Jack's study wrong , how about you take a similar photo as the one above , showing YOUR shadow instead of a fence post ? ... Or will you perhaps also have to turn into a contortionist to take that kind of picture ? Will you accept artificial light, or complain that it's not the same as sunlight? Where I live, when the sun is close to the horizon, it's obstructed by hills and buildings. But I will be at the shore on saturday at sunrise, I'll bring my camera then. Oh , and then take a picture of your shadow , also showing your feet standing to the side of the picture , and let's see what position your shadow is in then . I don't understand the point of that, which of the apollo photos in question show the photographer's feet, and why would they be to the side? Are you also a professional photographer ? ... Or perhaps just a "professional" debunker of Apollo hoax evidence ? Neither, both are just a hobby for me. BTW .... DISECTIING EVERY SINGLE LINE of your opponent's post is also part of the MO of a provocateur .... The pretense of debunking every single word that opposes your own beliefs , is also considered to be goading on some forums and not allowed . Neither, both are just a hobby for me. Then we do have something in common after all ! ... Though my hobby is debunking the authenticity of the Apollo photography , instead of defending it . I asked you to include your feet in the beach or indoor photo , so we can see if Jack is correct about where the photographers feet are in relationship to his shadow . "Any shadow of the photographer MUST lead to his feet, therefore must point toward the bottom center of the UNCROPPED photo." Comprende' ? Edited September 5, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 It's not disecting, I'm just putting the responses after the lines I'm responding too, it makes it easier to follow. Don't complain that I respond to everything you say, if you don't want a response to something, don't say it. As for that quote, no, I'm sorry, no comprende. The quote from Jack is a non sequitur, the conclusion is not supported by the premise. 1) Any shadow of the photographer must lead to his feet, True enough 2) Therefore must point to the bottom center of the uncropped photo. False, premise 1 does not lead to that conclusion. That's what this whole thread and all of the previous ones are about. The shadow is not required to end at the bottom center of the photo. We've seen dozens of examples of offset shadows that don't lead to bottom center, but so far not a single example of an offset shadow that leads to bottom center. The burden of proof is in Jack's court, he made the claim, he has not backed it up yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 It's not disecting, I'm just putting the responses after the lines I'm responding too, it makes it easier to follow. Don't complain that I respond to everything you say, if you don't want a response to something, don't say it.As for that quote, no, I'm sorry, no comprende. The quote from Jack is a non sequitur, the conclusion is not supported by the premise. 1) Any shadow of the photographer must lead to his feet, True enough 2) Therefore must point to the bottom center of the uncropped photo. False, premise 1 does not lead to that conclusion. That's what this whole thread and all of the previous ones are about. The shadow is not required to end at the bottom center of the photo. We've seen dozens of examples of offset shadows that don't lead to bottom center, but so far not a single example of an offset shadow that leads to bottom center. The burden of proof is in Jack's court, he made the claim, he has not backed it up yet. I don't know if you and Lamson are being deliberately misleading about this or if you just don't understand Jack's study ... but he has already backed up his claims with this new study . Maybe you should look at the revised version again ... It makes sense to me ... but then I'm not a professional photographer .... Oh , wait a minute .. Neither are you ! ... and of course we all know what Craig is .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 It's not disecting, I'm just putting the responses after the lines I'm responding too, it makes it easier to follow. Don't complain that I respond to everything you say, if you don't want a response to something, don't say it.As for that quote, no, I'm sorry, no comprende. The quote from Jack is a non sequitur, the conclusion is not supported by the premise. 1) Any shadow of the photographer must lead to his feet, True enough 2) Therefore must point to the bottom center of the uncropped photo. False, premise 1 does not lead to that conclusion. That's what this whole thread and all of the previous ones are about. The shadow is not required to end at the bottom center of the photo. We've seen dozens of examples of offset shadows that don't lead to bottom center, but so far not a single example of an offset shadow that leads to bottom center. The burden of proof is in Jack's court, he made the claim, he has not backed it up yet. I don't know if you and Lamson are being deliberately misleading about this or if you just don't understand Jack's study ... but he has already backed up his claims with this new study . Maybe you should look at the revised version again ... It makes sense to me ... but then I'm not a professional photographer .... Oh , wait a minute .. Neither are you ! ... and of course we all know what Craig is .. Thanks for reposting my previous debunking of the debunkers. In it I make very clear that I am NOT talking about the center EDGE of the photo, but to the center of the photograph where the photographer's FEET are. But even IF I WERE talking about the EDGE of the photo, it would still apply. Let's consider the word TOWARD, which is the key. If the shadow points TOWARD the center of the photo, it may be genuine. BUT if the shadow DOES NOT POINT TOWARD the center of the photo it cannot be an uncropped original photo. It is very simple. Only simpletons and provocateurs do not understand. Say after me: TOWARD the center, may be genuine. NOT TOWARD the center, MUST be fake. All who do not comprehend, raise your hands. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 5, 2007 Author Share Posted September 5, 2007 It's not disecting, I'm just putting the responses after the lines I'm responding too, it makes it easier to follow. Don't complain that I respond to everything you say, if you don't want a response to something, don't say it.As for that quote, no, I'm sorry, no comprende. The quote from Jack is a non sequitur, the conclusion is not supported by the premise. 1) Any shadow of the photographer must lead to his feet, True enough 2) Therefore must point to the bottom center of the uncropped photo. False, premise 1 does not lead to that conclusion. That's what this whole thread and all of the previous ones are about. The shadow is not required to end at the bottom center of the photo. We've seen dozens of examples of offset shadows that don't lead to bottom center, but so far not a single example of an offset shadow that leads to bottom center. The burden of proof is in Jack's court, he made the claim, he has not backed it up yet. Let me save you some trouble.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 It's not disecting, I'm just putting the responses after the lines I'm responding too, it makes it easier to follow. Don't complain that I respond to everything you say, if you don't want a response to something, don't say it.As for that quote, no, I'm sorry, no comprende. The quote from Jack is a non sequitur, the conclusion is not supported by the premise. 1) Any shadow of the photographer must lead to his feet, True enough 2) Therefore must point to the bottom center of the uncropped photo. False, premise 1 does not lead to that conclusion. That's what this whole thread and all of the previous ones are about. The shadow is not required to end at the bottom center of the photo. We've seen dozens of examples of offset shadows that don't lead to bottom center, but so far not a single example of an offset shadow that leads to bottom center. The burden of proof is in Jack's court, he made the claim, he has not backed it up yet. Let me save you some trouble.... Now you've gone a ruined everything ... And I was so looking forward to Kevin's artificially lit beach shadow photos .... Very clever pictures indeed , but why haven't we seen this 'evidence' before ? ... After all , they are so much more convincing than your contortionist pictures . Three questions ... Where is the proof that the feet pictures belong to the shadow pictures above them ? Where is the proof that your pictures are uncropped ? And more importantly , ( if you bothered to read Jack's latest study ) where is the proof in your feet piccys , that your camera was mounted to your chest and not held out to your side by several feet ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 6, 2007 Author Share Posted September 6, 2007 (edited) It's not disecting, I'm just putting the responses after the lines I'm responding too, it makes it easier to follow. Don't complain that I respond to everything you say, if you don't want a response to something, don't say it.As for that quote, no, I'm sorry, no comprende. The quote from Jack is a non sequitur, the conclusion is not supported by the premise. 1) Any shadow of the photographer must lead to his feet, True enough 2) Therefore must point to the bottom center of the uncropped photo. False, premise 1 does not lead to that conclusion. That's what this whole thread and all of the previous ones are about. The shadow is not required to end at the bottom center of the photo. We've seen dozens of examples of offset shadows that don't lead to bottom center, but so far not a single example of an offset shadow that leads to bottom center. The burden of proof is in Jack's court, he made the claim, he has not backed it up yet. I don't know if you and Lamson are being deliberately misleading about this or if you just don't understand Jack's study ... but he has already backed up his claims with this new study . Maybe you should look at the revised version again ... It makes sense to me ... but then I'm not a professional photographer .... Oh , wait a minute .. Neither are you ! ... and of course we all know what Craig is .. Thanks for reposting my previous debunking of the debunkers. In it I make very clear that I am NOT talking about the center EDGE of the photo, but to the center of the photograph where the photographer's FEET are. But even IF I WERE talking about the EDGE of the photo, it would still apply. Let's consider the word TOWARD, which is the key. If the shadow points TOWARD the center of the photo, it may be genuine. BUT if the shadow DOES NOT POINT TOWARD the center of the photo it cannot be an uncropped original photo. It is very simple. Only simpletons and provocateurs do not understand. Say after me: TOWARD the center, may be genuine. NOT TOWARD the center, MUST be fake. All who do not comprehend, raise your hands. Jack 'I see your hand and I'm not suprised because you simply don't comprehend ANY of this...and its basic photography 101! So lets see if you can learn anything and pehaps you can stop posting gross mis-information. It would be a nice change to see you NOT leading unknowing minds astray. Now about that word towards...DO you see it ANYWHERE in this statement of yours: Correct: when light is behind the photographer, his shadow MUST go the the bottom center where his feet are! No weasel words in that statement...just a precise declaration that the shadow MUST go the the bottom center. SO which is it, MUST or TOWARDS? Sadly BOTH statements are just plain wrong. Now lets deal with your very poor ability understand how a camera and lens works. If we have a situation where the photographer (or camera stand) is vertical and has the sun directly behind them...and the camera is level...their shadow will photograph as vertical regardless of where it is placed in the frame. Given the fact that the camera is level, the shadow SIMPLY CAN NOT ANGLE TOWARDS THE BOTTOM CENTER OF THE FRAME. Thats not how perspective works. To test this simple fact of photography, photograph a building with the camera level and look at the vertical lines. They stay vertical. These example photographs illustrate this simple fact, both with a shadow AND vertical lines in the building. Thes images are the ultimate in uncropped images, they show the entire image circle as cast by the lens. Now lets take the very same situation and this time lets point the camera upwards. Our the shadow from the vertical photographer (or camera atand) is still vertical HOWEVER the perspective changes because the CAMERA IS POINTED UPWARD. As such the shadows now converge TO THE TOP of the PHOTOGRAPH, as they must. You can also see that the vertical lines of the building ALSO CONVERGE TO THE TOP OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. Once again the images are the ultimate in uncropped images, they show the entire image circle as cast by the lens. Test this yourself by taking a photograph of a building and pointing the camera upwards. The vertical lines of the building will converge to the top of the photograph , as they should. Given the same situation as the first two examples, if you point the camera DOWN the vertical shadow of the photographer (or camera stand) will converge to the bottom of the photograph. Also notice how the vertical lines in the building also converge to the bottom of the photograph. Once again the images are the ultimate in uncropped images, they show the entire image circle as cast by the lens. Test this yourself by taking a photograph of a building and pointing the camera downwards. The vertical lines will converge to the bottom of the photograph. So Jack you have now been educated. It is very simple. Photography 101. Repete after me: There is no problem in the Apollo offset shadow images.... There is no problem in the Apollo offset shadow images.... And next time you try and create a law of photography that is impossible, take some picture to try and prove your point. Edited September 6, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 Thanks for the lesson in photography 101 but did you have to keep using that same boring picture ? ... BTW , your studio looks large enough to have faked some of the Apollo photographs in .... What did you say your role was again, in helping nasa out with their ALSJ ? I see your hand also and it's the same hand you have always played on this forum .... It's known as ... Let's all bash Jack and try to make him look like the bad guy !... Nice trick , since he's the one who exposes the real bad guys . As interesting as your condescending photography lesson was though , I couldn't help but notice that you skipped right over my post and didn't even bother to answer my three questions to you ... So I will repeat them again and maybe his time you will have enough consideration to reply . Three questions ... Where is the proof that the feet pictures belong to the shadow pictures above them ? Where is the proof that your pictures are uncropped ? And more importantly , ( if you bothered to read Jack's latest study ) where is the proof in your feet piccys , that your camera was mounted to your chest and not held out to your side by several feet ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 Duane, the only way you'll prove it to yourself is to do it yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 6, 2007 Author Share Posted September 6, 2007 Duane, the only way you'll prove it to yourself is to do it yourself. Now that would be something to see...he mioght even learn something..about photography and about how Jack has pulled the wool over his eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 Duane, the only way you'll prove it to yourself is to do it yourself. Now that would be something to see...he mioght even learn something..about photography and about how Jack has pulled the wool over his eyes. I see you still didn't bother to answer my three questions ... No surprise there ... So it looks to me like the only "wool " being pulled here would be yours . Would you like to answer them now , or should I assume that you are unable to , as by doing so it will expose the tricks you employed to capture those certain off to the side feet photos ? I believe what we have here is a very clever and deliberate failure to communicate .... Try reading "NASA PARAMETERS" again in Jack's study and then see how far your photography 101 lesson flys . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 6, 2007 Author Share Posted September 6, 2007 (edited) Duane, the only way you'll prove it to yourself is to do it yourself. Now that would be something to see...he mioght even learn something..about photography and about how Jack has pulled the wool over his eyes. I see you still didn't bother to answer my three questions ... No surprise there ... So it looks to me like the only "wool " being pulled here would be yours . Would you like to answer them now , or should I assume that you are unable to , as by doing so it will expose the tricks you employed to capture those certain off to the side feet photos ? I believe what we have here is a very clever and deliberate failure to communicate .... Try reading "NASA PARAMETERS" again in Jack's study and then see how far your photography 101 lesson flys . A reply would do you no good, its all beyond you, and to refresh your memory as tyo why we will no longer having any further conversations.... Some things take more than just your "mind" to accomplish Craig , as I'm sure you well know .. LOL ... As for what you can do that I can't ... It probably only involves taking pretty pictures with your fancy cameras . Please deal with Duane ? ... Would you like to see me suspended or completely banned for that little infraction ? .. Or how about just the regular treatment of being ridiculed ? Hey , I know ... How about some waterboarding torture for Duane the " conspiracy crackpot " ?? ... I bet you would love to see that , seeing as how you defend every dirty deed the US government ever perpetrated , with the zeal of a Nazi stormtrooper . I just want you to be subject to the same leve lof moderation that I am.. You broke the rules and I called you on it. As for you being suspended or bannd...not my call, but we are now done. Calling me a nazi is over the line. So long Duane. Edited September 6, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 (edited) A reply would do you no good, its all beyond you, and to refresh your memory as tyo why we will no longer having any further conversations.... That's a complete cop out and you know it ... So is bringing up a past argument . If you had a reply that would benefit you , you would certainly not hesitate to post it , instead of looking like a dishonest fool . * edited to add... You are also being dishonest in what you claim my post comments were to you .... but since you are so accomplished at copying and pasting old arguments , why don't you copy my post where you claim I called you a Nazi , and then we can all read what I really said . Edited September 6, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 6, 2007 Author Share Posted September 6, 2007 A reply would do you no good, its all beyond you, and to refresh your memory as tyo why we will no longer having any further conversations.... That's a complete cop out and you know it ... So is bringing up a past argument . If you had a reply that would benefit you , you would certainly not hesitate to post it , instead of looking like a dishonest fool . * edited to add... You are also being dishonest in what you claim my post comments were to you .... but since you are so accomplished at copying and pasting old arguments , why don't you copy my post where you claim I called you a Nazi , and then we can all read what I really said . See my post above.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 (edited) "I bet you would love to see that , seeing as how you defend every dirty deed the US government ever perpetrated , with the zeal of a Nazi stormtrooper ." That's not the same thing as calling you a Nazi . Now , since you are posting comments to me again , how about we get back on topic and you answer my three question to you . Edited September 6, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now