Jack White and David Percy....

[Kevin M. West]

Your 3 questions are meaningless, you won't believe any answer anyway. Go do the experiment yourself and learn something.

By the way, did you notice that in the 3 pics above the feet pics, his shadow is in the exact same place on the ground in all 3 and the shadow clearly shows that he is not holding the camera out to the side by 'several feet'. All he did was turn slightly in place.

[Duane Daman]

Tick tick tick .

Maybe Craig has returned to the Apollo hoax forum to get some more advise from his pals there on how to answer Duane's three questions , or how to pretend to debunk Jack's study some more ?

Here's a PM I just received from a buddy of mine on YouTuBe , which I thought you might get a kick out of Craig .

" Is that ***** Lamsons latest BS sad attempt to annoy Jack?

I've been keeping an eye on that thread. He first posted his work at Apollohoax to make sure he was correct and get backslapped by the geeks there."

[Duane Daman]

Your 3 questions are meaningless, you won't believe any answer anyway. Go do the experiment yourself and learn something.

By the way, did you notice that in the 3 pics above the feet pics, his shadow is in the exact same place on the ground in all 3 and the shadow clearly shows that he is not holding the camera out to the side by 'several feet'. All he did was turn slightly in place.

Then you admit that his camera was not chest mounted and therefore he was not following the NASA parameters stated in Jack's study ?

[Kevin M. West]

Can you explain what difference it makes if the camera is at chest level instead of eye level?

[Kevin M. West]

And as a followup, does the height of the person taking the picture matter?

[Duane Daman]

Can you explain what difference it makes if the camera is at chest level instead of eye level?

Very tricky reply but that is not the point .... If a camera is HELD at chest level and the body turned , opposed to eye level and the body turned , it should make no difference .... But that's not what I asked and that's not what NASA's parameters were , as stated in Jack's study ... Jack clearly stated chest mounted and the photographer facing forward ... Which would make all the difference as to where the photographer's shadow would be positioned in the photo .

Edited September 6, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

Well, I see that Craig has not picked up his toys and gone home after all .... So while we're all waiting for him to reply to my three questions , how about let's all enjoy some music !

Do you like rock videos Craig , or have you gotten too old for that kind of thing now ?... Well if you like music , then here's my favorite rock video of all time , dedicated just to you .

It's a little tune all about America called ' AMERIKA '!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4w9EksAo5hY

[Jack White]

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

Lamson tries to weasel out by saying I did not use the word TOWARD.

Shows his power of comprehension. Look again...THRICE I said TOWARD.

Ignorance is no excuse.

Jack

Edited September 6, 2007 by Jack White

[Craig Lamson]

Can you explain what difference it makes if the camera is at chest level instead of eye level?

I can see that Duane is still stuck on Jack's strawman. What is facing forward? Is it facing directly with the sun? What about if the astronaut turns his body 20 degrees away from the the axis of the sun to either side (as can clearly be seen in these Apollo 12 images)

Is the chest mounted camera still facing forward? OF COURSE IT IS! When that happens the shadow of the photographer is now offset. The angle of the resulting shadow depends on two things, the up, level or down tilt of the camera and and the direction of lean of the astronaut (if any). Disregarding the lean of the astronaut, if he points his camera upwards, the resulting shadow will POINT AWAY form the bottom center of the photograph, and do so BECAUSE THE FILM PLANE IS TILTED UPWARD. THIS IS AN UNBREAKABLE LAW OF PERSPECTIVE when using a camera with a fixed, lensplane/filmplane.

Again , disregarding astronaut lean, if the camera is held level the resulting offset shadow will be PERFECTLY VERTICAL AND WILL NOT POINT TO EITHER THE TOP OR BOTTOM CENTER OF THE PHOTOGRAPH

Finally disregarding astronaut lean, if the camera is pointed downward, THEN AND ONLY THEN WILL THE SHADOWS POINT TOWARDS THE BOTTOM CENTER OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Kevin M. West]

Hi Jack,

You're a photographer, maybe you can help Duane.

Can you explain why there would be any difference in the angle of the shadow if the camera was held at eye level instead of chest level?

Also, can you explain why you set such arbitrary parameters for the pictures and completely ignored the parameters that actually matter, like the tilt of the camera and the slope of the ground that the shadow is falling on?

Thanks!

[Duane Daman]

Hi Jack,

You're a photographer, maybe you can help Duane.

Can you explain why there would be any difference in the angle of the shadow if the camera was held at eye level instead of chest level?

Also, can you explain why you set such arbitrary parameters for the pictures and completely ignored the parameters that actually matter, like the tilt of the camera and the slope of the ground that the shadow is falling on?

Thanks!

More tricky questions .... I thought you meant would there be any difference in the position of an off sided shadow in a photo , if the camera were held at either eye level or chest level ... and my answer was there shouldn't be .

Your game here seems to be nothing more than getting one up on your opposition ... It's the same silly game you played with me on the UM and it really is getting pretty old now .

Both arguments seem logical to me , so at this point I'm wondering if we are talking about two entirely different concepts here ? .. I will take some photos of my own to see if I can make any sense out of any of this.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Kevin M. West]

Hi Jack,

You're a photographer, maybe you can help Duane.

Can you explain why there would be any difference in the angle of the shadow if the camera was held at eye level instead of chest level?

Also, can you explain why you set such arbitrary parameters for the pictures and completely ignored the parameters that actually matter, like the tilt of the camera and the slope of the ground that the shadow is falling on?

Thanks!

More tricky questions .... I thought you meant would there be any difference in the position of an off sided shadow in a photo , if the camera were held at either eye level or chest level ... and my answer was there shouldn't be .

They're not meant to be tricky. That is exactly what I meant, raising the camera 1ft or so will not change the effect that Jack's study claims, that shadows must point to the bottom center.

Your game here seems to be nothing more than getting one up on your opposition ... It's the same silly game you played with me on the UM and it really is getting pretty old now .

My only "game" here is trying to get you to think about what Jack is saying so you'll realize he is wrong. And note that I didn't say he might be wrong. He IS wrong in this case. I know this for a fact, as much as I know that 2+2=4, and I'm asking these questions to try to figure out what misconcption you have that is stopping you from seeing the truth.

Both arguments seem logical to me , so at this point I'm wondering if we are talking about two entirely different concepts here ? .. I will take some photos of my own to see if I can make any sense out of any of this.

That's exactly what you should be doing! Jack said something incredibly easy to test is impossible, so why not test!

[Craig Lamson]

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

Lamson tries to weasel out by saying I did not use the word TOWARD.

Shows his power of comprehension. Look again...THRICE I said TOWARD.

Ignorance is no excuse.

Jack

You are right, there is no excuse for your inability to comprehend the written word.

Lets see what I ACTUALLY said and see if its anything close to your claim that I tried to say you did not use the word "toward" in your study.

My statement:

"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."

I quoted a SINGLE PHRASE from your study. A phrase I might add that you chose to highlight by placing it centered in your layout, with nearly the largest typeface in the entire study...and you made the type bright blue. It was clearly your intent to make this one of the defining statements in your study.

In this single phrase, the one on which you place such great importance, I asked where was the word "toward." The answer was NOWHERE. I then asked what was it, MUST, which is precise, or towards, which is a weasel word.

NOWHERE did I state nor imply you had NOT used the word "towards" in your study. My comments were based on a single PHRASE in your study.

Now, you wanna try again? This time how about dealing with your lack of knowlege about how perspective distortion works. That would be a start on the path TOWARDS the truth.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

Some quick comments:

- Duane's comment about "You are also being dishonest in what you claim my post comments were to you" (post #43) might be getting close to the line, but IMO he doesn't cross it.

- Duane's remark about "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 ?" (post #38) is very close to the line. You have used 'fak(ing)... Apollo photographs' and "role in help nasa (sic) out with their ALSJ...' together. It would be easy for someone to read that and assume you are saying Craig has helped fake Apollo images. Please be very careful with an accusation approaching anything like that, because I won't tolerate it.

- The ALSJ is hosted on a NASA server, but is NOT under NASA control. It's run by Eric Jones, who lives in Australia. He amends it, and NASA uploads the amendments. They have no control of the contents. Craig's name has appeared on the acknowledgments page because he has assisted Eric in some way. I'm happy to provide you with Eric's e-mail address, if you are unable to find it, and you can address questions about the ALSJ to him.

- Craig, if you are not answering Duane's three questions, would you say why you won't or cannot answer them?

[Evan Burton]

Jack,

Based on your replies regarding the shadows, how do you explain the following images?

Source: http://www.jonathans.me.uk/index.cgi?secti...pic=two_shadows

Source: http://www.springdaleark.org/shiloh/photo_...atson_intro.htm

Source: http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~dchoi/pictures/Baja/baja.html

Edited September 7, 2007 by Evan Burton