Faked Apollo Photos

[Duane Daman]

Sadly Jack, you are wrong again. The yellow lines ONLY show that a single lihgt source was used to create this photograph. I suggest you study up on VPA before putting both feet in your mouth again, that is unless you really like the taste of shoes. Try again next time.

Yes it does , as in a single SPOTLIGHT .

Sadly , the only thing you know how to do besides take pretty pictures , is to lecture about photography , and character assassinate those who have proven that the official Apollo photographic record is nothing but a pile of ridiculous looking faked photos .

[Duane Daman]

Speaking of faked Apollo photographs and videos , where do you think Apollo astro-NOT Alan Bean got the idea to paint this picture of his alleged mission to the Moon ? ... Has he possibly forgotten that the exhaust plume on the LM was INVISIBLE in a vacuum and that's why it NEVER showed up in any of the nasa videos allegedy taken on the Moon !?!?

[Craig Lamson]

Sadly Jack, you are wrong again. The yellow lines ONLY show that a single lihgt source was used to create this photograph. I suggest you study up on VPA before putting both feet in your mouth again, that is unless you really like the taste of shoes. Try again next time.

Yes it does , as in a single SPOTLIGHT .

Sadly , the only thing you know how to do besides take pretty pictures , is to lecture about photography , and character assassinate those who have proven that the official Apollo photographic record is nothing but a pile of ridiculous looking faked photos .

Sadly for you Duane your "belief" that your "heros' have proven anyting is misplaced. You don't even understand the process yet you parrot those who share your worldview. Not very wise of you Duane.

This discussion is about PHOTOGRAPHY. I live advanced photography EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE. When you and your masters can prove with simple empircal proof that any of my statements are wrong I will gladly admit it, unlike Jack White.

But I will also give you credit where credit is due. VPA can only illustrate the NUMBER of lights creating shadows in a photograph. If cannot tell the difference between an artifical light source and the sun.

White, who claims great skill and expertise at photography is wrong, which speaks volumes about the skill set he claims to posess.

Now that even YOU know White is incorrect, do you think he can admit his mistake LIKE A MAN?

Edited September 24, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Dave Greer]

EXCELLENT DIAGRAM!

Your yellow lines show that the light casting the shadows in the photo

WAS VERY CLOSE!

The sun is 93000000miles away, and sunrays at that distance are

essentially parallel...so your yellow lines should not converge!

Thanks for admitting that the light source was close!

Jack

Sorry Jack old bean

You need to do some research on what a Vanishing Point Analysis is. Here's one I did that shows quite clearly that coverging lines on a VPA do NOT indicate that a lightsource is closeup - they indicate where the lightsource actually is. The lines here converge to where the lightsource creating the shadows is (i.e. the sun, which is, as you pointed out, 93,000,000 miles away).

[Dave Greer]

Dave ... If your latest nonsense is correct , then the shadow in the original Apollo photo is not in the correct position either , as all Percy did was to paste his corrected shadow over the original fake .

Well, if it's correct, then it ain't nonsense! Of course Percy put the shadow in the wrong position. The shadow of the edge of the boot isn't in the right location, neither is the edge of the PLSS.

But the POSITION of the corrected shadow in the photo really isn't the problem is it ? ... I'ts the SHAPE of the shadow which is wrong in the Apollo photo .

Why is the shape wrong? Have you taken into account the fact that there is a low sun angle, and the shadow is cast onto the downlope of a crater? Have you factored in the perspective effect that will make the shadows look narrower from the given viewing angle? Given all these factors, it's highly likely that the shadow cast by his knee isn't even in the field of view of the camera.

If you want to prove this to yourself just take a picture of someone standing out in the Sun in the position of the astronot and see what their shadow looks like ... I will guarentee you that it will NOT look anything like the phony Apollo photo and WILL look much more like Percy's photo .

No offence intended, but given your admitted lack of photographic knowledge I'll take that with a large spoonful of salt!

[Duane Daman]

Doesn't anyone want to address my post above about Alan Bean's garrish artwork , and why he would see an exhaust plume when none of the Apollo videos ever showed one ?

Ok , enough of the Vanishing Point nonsense Dave ... Lets get back to the topic of shadows on the moonset , shall we ?

So here's what we have so far .... No one has shown any evidence that the Apollo photograph of Pete Conrad dangling from his fly system , has a shadow that matches the subject , or that the original shadow could be duplicated again by using either an Apollo spotlight 'Sun ', or the real Sun .

Here's one for you boys .... Can either one of you tell me the difference between the 'real' shadow and the faked shadow this picture ? ... They sure look identical to me .

This one photo alone shows how easily the Apollo photos were faked by pasting images into the photos .

Edited September 24, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

Oh , and here's one more for you boys .... Can you prove that this photo was not taken on the Moon ?

Look at the astro-NOT'S shadow and what do you see ?? .... That's right , the SHADOW of the BANJO !!! .. It even shows the SHADOW of the banjo case !!!!

So I guess this proves that Buzz took a banjo with him to the Moon , right ??

[Craig Lamson]

So here's what we have so far .... No one has shown any evidence that the Apollo photograph of Pete Conrad dangling from his fly system , has a shadow that matches the subject , or that the original shadow could be duplicated again by using either an Apollo spotlight 'Sun ', or the real Sun .

No Duane HERE is what we have. You have parroted a altered Apollo image and you claim it shows the correct shape of the shadow. You have offered NO empirical proof that the altered apollo iimage is anyting close to reality. In other words you don't have a clue if the image is correct of if the claim you ar parroting are factual.

THEN you have the gall to say...prove my master wrong!

Seems you have it all backwards. Its YOU who has the burden of proof.

In addition Dave has aptly shown that the shadow in the alteration is incorrect.

So here is where we are. Your parroted claim has been shown to have some major problems in regards to the altered shadow, and YOU can offer NO EMPIRICAL PROOF to support your parroted claims.

Try again next time.

[Duane Daman]

Just as I thought ... Neither one of you can defend nasa's faked photo with it's incorrect shadow .

All Dave has done is to draw some lines on the photo as usual , and then pretend he has refuted Percy's corrected shadow analysis .

And all you have done is to preach and give photography lessons .

You are the professional photographer , so this should be a piece of cake for you to prove ... All you have to do is to take your expensive camera out in the sunshine , find a person to stand in the position of Conrad on the moonset and then see if you can get a shadow to match the original Apollo one .

Like I told Dave ... What you will get is a shadow which will be a closer match to Percy's corrected version , than to the faked Apollo one .

But if you are too afraid to take the shot , then I will borrow my friends digital camera and take a picture that will prove you both wrong .

Edited September 24, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

Just as I thought ... Neither one of you can defend nasa's faked photo with it's incorrect shadow .

All Dave has done is to draw some lines on the photo as usual , and then pretend he has refuted Percy's corrected shadow analysis .

And all you have done is to preach and give photography lessons .

You are the professional photographer , so this should be a piece of cake for you to prove ... All you have to do is to take your expensice camera out in the sunshine , find a person to stand in the position of Conrad on the moonset and then see if you can get a shadow to match the original Apollo one .

Like I told Dave ... What you will get is a shadow which will be a closer match to Percy's corrected version , than to the faked Apollo one .

But if you are too afraid to take the shot , then I will borrow my friends digital camera and take a picture that will prove you both wrong .

Go right ahead and shoot Duane, but you are at least 2 "studies" behind. Why not do what you have already said you would do? Like deal with the bag drop and the offset shadow claim?

This is one is not hard to do, but if you try mak SURE you get the sun at the correct angle, not like the noon day sun Percy created with his crappy shadow.

I look forward to your tests. Oh and make sure you try lots of "astronant" angles so you can get the sun/bent leg angle just right...its the key to the entire test...

Happy shooting!

[Duane Daman]

I would like very much to deal with the bag drop claim but unfortunately my "think tank" didn't follow up on what was promised to me ... and since I don't have direct contact with the engineer who was suppossed to supply the math figures which would have proven Dave wrong , there is nothing I can post on that thread yet .

As for the offset shadows , I will see what I come up with as I also try to duplicate the Conrad photo shadow .

As for the Sun angle , are you now claiming that would change the shape of the shadow as well as the length ? ... I'm not concerned with the length , but only the shape of the shadow , which Percy matched up to the subject and nasa didn't .

[Dave Greer]

Just as I thought ... Neither one of you can defend nasa's faked photo with it's incorrect shadow .

All Dave has done is to draw some lines on the photo as usual , and then pretend he has refuted Percy's corrected shadow analysis .

You fail to understand what the lines represent. Each line joins a point on a shadow and the corresponding point on an object that created the shadow. Since light travels in straight lines, we know that each line must pass through the location of the lightsource (if the photo is pointing downsun, they will intersect where the shadow of the camera lens is).

Percy's attempt at drawing in a shadow is refuted, regardless of your inability to understand the refutation.

And all you have done is to preach and give photography lessons .

You are the professional photographer , so this should be a piece of cake for you to prove ... All you have to do is to take your expensive camera out in the sunshine , find a person to stand in the position of Conrad on the moonset and then see if you can get a shadow to match the original Apollo one .

I've learnt quite a lot from Craig's photo analyses. I should do: he's a professional photographer and I'm not!

Like I told Dave ... What you will get is a shadow which will be a closer match to Percy's corrected version , than to the faked Apollo one .

But if you are too afraid to take the shot , then I will borrow my friends digital camera and take a picture that will prove you both wrong .

Make sure you have the sun angle correct (22 - 23 degrees), and cast the shadow onto a downslope of a similar angle to the one in the photo.

While you're there, you can take a photo to prove to yourself who is right about the "offset shadow" issue.

[Craig Lamson]

I would like very much to deal with the bag drop claim but unfortunately my "think tank" didn't follow up on what was promised to me ... and since I don't have direct contact with the engineer who was suppossed to supply the math figures which would have proven Dave wrong , there is nothing I can post on that thread yet .

As for the offset shadows , I will see what I come up with as I also try to duplicate the Conrad photo shadow .

As for the Sun angle , are you now claiming that would change the shape of the shadow as well as the length ? ... I'm not concerned with the length , but only the shape of the shadow , which Percy matched up to the subject and nasa didn't .

A low sun angle is needed to create the long shadows, a down slope is needed to increase the length, the correct angle of the bent leg to the sun ( you will need the knee to be directly towards the sun for the bent leg to look "unbent") to get the correct shape and finally the camera being lower than the subject to narrow up the shadows. Lots of thing to get correct Good luck

Edited September 24, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

Just as I thought ... Neither one of you can defend nasa's faked photo with it's incorrect shadow .

All Dave has done is to draw some lines on the photo as usual , and then pretend he has refuted Percy's corrected shadow analysis .

You fail to understand what the lines represent. Each line joins a point on a shadow and the corresponding point on an object that created the shadow. Since light travels in straight lines, we know that each line must pass through the location of the lightsource (if the photo is pointing downsun, they will intersect where the shadow of the camera lens is).

Percy's attempt at drawing in a shadow is refuted, regardless of your inability to understand the refutation.

And all you have done is to preach and give photography lessons .

You are the professional photographer , so this should be a piece of cake for you to prove ... All you have to do is to take your expensive camera out in the sunshine , find a person to stand in the position of Conrad on the moonset and then see if you can get a shadow to match the original Apollo one .

I've learnt quite a lot from Craig's photo analyses. I should do: he's a professional photographer and I'm not!

Like I told Dave ... What you will get is a shadow which will be a closer match to Percy's corrected version , than to the faked Apollo one .

But if you are too afraid to take the shot , then I will borrow my friends digital camera and take a picture that will prove you both wrong .

Make sure you have the sun angle correct (22 - 23 degrees), and cast the shadow onto a downslope of a similar angle to the one in the photo.

While you're there, you can take a photo to prove to yourself who is right about the "offset shadow" issue.

You do realize that your own study debunked the original Apollo shadow , don't you ? ... Percy's shadow was placed right over the original faked shadow ... So if he is wrong , then so were the photo fakers who were more interested in Whistle-Blowing than getting the vanishing point or the shape of the shadow correct .

Sounds like a job for a professional photographer like Craig ... I bet he could fake a shadow to match the phony Apollo piccy in a heart beat ... O then , maybe not , since he has refused the challenge .

[Dave Greer]

You do realize that your own study debunked the original Apollo shadow , don't you ? ... Percy's shadow was placed right over the original faked shadow ... So if he is wrong , then so were the photo fakers who were more interested in Whistle-Blowing than getting the vanishing point or the shape of the shadow correct .

Sounds like a job for a professional photographer like Craig ... I bet he could fake a shadow to match the phony Apollo piccy in a heart beat ... O then , maybe not , since he has refused the challenge .

Duane, with a VPA you need to be able to match up a shadow with the physical object that cast it. This can be easy to do with some objects like picket fences (hence my example), and more difficult (but not impossible) with less angular shapes. The VPA of the Apollo photo showed no inconsistencies: it did however highlight the errors when Percy drew in his own shadow. It wasn't so much the location of the shadow itself that was the problem - it was the location of certain parts of the shadow, i.e. the boot and the corner of the PLSS.

While you're having fun trying to recreate the "matchstick leg" photograph, have a think about this photograph. Why does the shadow of the photographer appear to have very long, spindly legs? What would your reaction have been if you saw a shadow similar to this on an Apollo photograph?

Going back to the photograph that you think had a shadow pasted in, the question I would aks is: if NASA had these huge soundstages, covered in fake moondust, illuminated by massive spotlights, why oh why did they have to fake any shadows? Wouldn't it have been a whole lot simpler just to photograph someone in a spacesuit? Why create all that extra work trying desparately to make shadows match up. Were the photos of the astronauts pasted in as well? If so, why photograph them separately? Why not on the soundstage? If they were taken on the soundstage, why didn't they cast shadows? It just doesn't make any sense at all.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Dave Greer