Faked Apollo Photos

[Craig Lamson]

I knew that the Apollo photography was faked long before I ever knew about Percy or White ... So once again , no matter how many times you repeat this lie , it will not make it true ... They are not my "masters" in any respect .

You have tapped danced around this one in your typical fashion ... You can't prove that the shadow in this photo is real , so you go off topic to attack David Percy again .

Neither you or Dave have proven anything , except that you have no real rebuttal to this faked shadow photo .. and that you both will use any desperate measures necessary to defend every single one of nasa's phony photos .

If you really believe the light source is coming from the FRONT , then I guess that means nasa not only got the shape of the shadow wrong , but also it's position on the moonset !

Looks like you shot yourself in your own foot with that little mistake craig ... Maybe you will be more careful the next time you decide to follow phunk's incorrect lead .

So thats your problem daune, you don't KNOW anything abuot photography. Its all a guess for you, that and your parroting others work without understanding. And yes duane, the light is coming from the FRONT of the astronaut, and my foot is just fine thank you very much.

Still waiting for some form of empirical proof from you that Percy has the shadow right, which wil lbe VERY hard for you since the VPA shows he got it all wrong....

Edited September 25, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

One doesn't have to be a professional photographer to know that the Apollo photos are fakes ... The anomalies in the photos are there for everyone to see , who isn't blind to the truth .

I haven't had the time to make my own photos yet , but after the way you and Dave carried on , it doesn't sound like nasa's fake picture could be duplicated very easily ... Sun angle and all that ..

That's why I thought you would jump at the chance to try to prove me wrong by doing your own photo study , just like you did to try to prove Jack wrong by contorting your body to get your feet in the off side shadows photos you made .

The light is coming from the RIGHT front , not DIRECTLY from the front ( thus the shadow to the LEFT rear ) ... So I'm very surprised to hear that your foot is just fine ....You must have gotten surgery then after you shot it .

Oh , and if Percy got it wrong (according to Dave's VPA diagram) , then nasa got it wrong as well .

Edited September 25, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

One doesn't have to be a professional photographer to know that the Apollo photos are fakes ... The anomalies in the photos are there for everyone to see , who isn't blind to the truth .

I haven't had the time to make my own photos yet , but after the way you and Dave carried on , it doesn't sound like nasa's fake picture could be duplicated very easily ... Sun angle and all that ..

That's why I thought you would jump at the chance to try to prove me wrong by doing your own photo study , just like you did to try to prove Jack wrong by contorting your body to get your feet in the off side shadows photos you made .

The light is coming from the RIGHT front , not DIRECTLY from the front ( thus the shadow to the LEFT rear ) ... So I'm very surprised to hear that your foot is just fine ....You must have gotten surgery then after you shot it .

Oh , and if Percy got it wrong (according to Dave's VPA diagram) , then nasa got it wrong as well .

Once more in the hopes that some of this sinks in, but I'm not holding my breath. The light is drectly in front of the subject...that is HE IS FACING IT. The shadow FALLS directly behind him...exactly in the opposite direction that he is facing. Try again next tiime

And yes the specfics of this image ARE quite complex but they all contribute to the outcome. Get them wrong and you fail. However IF you understand the interplay of these specfics you can see the image is quite proper. Learn somthing and maybe you can move past the parrot stage.

Sadly for you and your masters it DOES take a very IN DEPTH understanding of the science and art of photography to know what you are seeing. You dont have that. And it has been shown over and over that White and Percy fail as well. Lets face it, if you dont understand the process how in the world can you know what are anomalies and what are not? Really fine logic there Duane.

As a case in point you once again bring up the offset shadow study and you once again FAIL to understand WHY my body was turned to the extent that it was. Let me enlighten you. As I stated when I posted that study I used a 12mm lens on a full frame 35mm digital camera. Since that just flew right over your head, what you need to know that 12mm is a SUPERwide lens on that film format. It has an Angle Of View of 122 degrees. Thats over DOUBLE the AOV of the 60mm hasselblad lens used on the moon. I used that lens for a reason, and that reason was to eliminate any possiblilty that the ignorant could claim the image was cropped to move the shadow to the sides of the frame. My three frame series covered over 225 degrees. In contrast a similar series with the 60mm Hasselblad lens nets only 100 degrees. So now can you understand WHY my body was turned far more that the Apollo images? To move the shadow to the side with a Hasselblad 60mm requires a camera rotation of about 20 degrees. The same thing with the 12mm requires a camera rotation of about 55 degrees. And thats why the images looked like they did. But notice that the RESULTS WERE THE SAME. The offset shadow is not lens dependant.

Of course if you had the knowlege base you would have known that from the start. Its also interesting to note that all of this was lost on "photo expert" White.

[Duane Daman]

Lets face it, if you dont understand the process how in the world can you know what are anomalies and what are not? Really fine logic there Duane.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a professional photographer to see that a spotlight is not the Sun , or that a stagelight or a huge spotlight is reflected in an astronot's visor , or that a shadow doesn't match the subject it's suppossed to belong to, or that buggy tracks are missing behind the rover for no reason , or that bootprints have no point of origin , or that mountains don't have the correct perspective , or that the LM moves around from one photo to the next , or that some of the backgrounds are painted , or that every photo with any distance perspective to it has a straight dividing line showing where the moonset floor ends and the fake backdrop begins , etc .

The phony Apollo photos have so many anomalies in them it isn't funny ....and it's not the selective crap that Windley and Plait parade around either , like the lack of stars or why the shadows intersect ... In fact , its not only what the Apollo photos show that's the problem , it's what they don't show ... but I will save that for another thread , as the list is much too long to go into now .

You keep claiming that Jack can never admit when he is wrong about something .. Well , I have news for you pal , neither can you or any other defender of the faked Apollo photography .. You would rather die than to admit that even one of the Apollo photos is anomalous or suspicious in any respect .. and considering how many of them are anomalous and suspicious , I find that downright dishonest and deceptive .

Edited September 26, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

Lets face it, if you dont understand the process how in the world can you know what are anomalies and what are not? Really fine logic there Duane.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a professional photographer to see that a spotlight is not the Sun , or that a stagelight or a huge spotlight is reflected in an astronot's visor , or that a shadow doesn't match the subject it's suppossed to belong to, or that buggy tracks are missing behind the rover for no reason , or that bootprints have no point of origin , or that mountains don't have the correct perspective , or that the LM moves around from one photo to the next , or that some of the backgrounds are painted , or that every photo with any distance perspective to it has a straight dividing line showing where the moonset floor ends and the fake backdrop begins , etc .

The phony Apollo photos have so many anomalies in them it isn't funny ....and it's not the selective crap that Windley and Plait parade around either , like the lack of stars or why the shadows intersect ... In fact , its not only what the Apollo photos show that's the problem , it's what they don't show ... but I will save that for another thread , as the list is much too long to go into now .

You keep claiming that Jack can never admit when he is wrong about something .. Well , I have news for you pal , neither can you or any other defender of the faked Apollo photography .. You would rather die than to admit that even one of the Apollo photos is anomalous or suspicious in any respect .. and considering how many of them are anomalous and suspicious , I find that downright dishonest and deceptive .

Sorry Duane but IT DOES take a PRO or at least someone with in depth knowlege to know WHY what you think is a studio light is not, and why your visor claims are false, and why the shadows are just fine...and on and on.

You have no clue, and by the looks of it, you never will.

Prove me wrong anytime you can, I welcome it.

Just bring your A game or the A team and be sure to bring EMPIRICAL evidence..your White/Percy garbage need not apply.

[Duane Daman]

Here ya go Craig ... This one's for you , compliments of Jack ....

Prove me wrong anytime you can, I welcome it.

The problem with that challenge is that I can prove you wrong a dozen times , by showing you numerous anomalies in the Apollo photos , but sadly you will always claim that no anomalies exist ... That is what is known as being in a state of denial ... and unfortunately it makes you blind to anything except your own closed minded opinion .

Edited September 26, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Jack White]

Here ya go Craig ... This one's for you , compliments of Jack ....

Prove me wrong anytime you can, I welcome it.

The problem with that challenge is that I can prove you wrong a dozen times , by showing you numerous anomalies in the Apollo photos , but sadly you will always claim that no anomalies exist ... That is what is known as being in a state of denial ... and unfortunately it makes you blind to anything except your own closed minded opinion .

Thanks for posting that, Duane. Now show them the one with the

light reflecting off of the backdrop. Light, of course, does not bounce

off of the atmosphere free lunar sky.

Jack

[John Smith]

Just want to ask that if this shadow is directly behind the person and appears angled because it's being cast on a sloped surface, isn't it odd that his right (frontmost) boot isn't at the same slope?

[John Smith]

I meant left boot.

[Duane Daman]

Here ya go craig ... Here's Jack's second present for you !

Oh , and it's for you too Dave .. I wouldn't want you to feel left out ... ( I bet Dave is gonna say that's just "lens flare" ...Besides "smudges or scratches on the visor , that's his second most used excuse )

[Craig Lamson]

Here ya go Craig ... This one's for you , compliments of Jack ....

Prove me wrong anytime you can, I welcome it.

The problem with that challenge is that I can prove you wrong a dozen times , by showing you numerous anomalies in the Apollo photos , but sadly you will always claim that no anomalies exist ... That is what is known as being in a state of denial ... and unfortunately it makes you blind to anything except your own closed minded opinion .

See there you and Jack go again, making stuff up out of whole cloth and calling it proff and evidence. jack is just as bad a Percy and once again yougrin and get led along by your nose ring.

WHat has WHite "proven" with this junk? Has he gone out and actully taken a picture to support his claim (remenber he claims to be a profession photographer}? NO he has not. And he attempts to tell us what a shadow looks like when ithas been PROVEN that white does not know how shadows work. (wanna go back quite a few years for more prrof just look at whites study of the split face oswald and see him fail at shadow 101 again)

So we still await some form of emperical proof from you jokers to support yor claims. You ever going to do it?

[Craig Lamson]

Here ya go Craig ... This one's for you , compliments of Jack ....

Prove me wrong anytime you can, I welcome it.

The problem with that challenge is that I can prove you wrong a dozen times , by showing you numerous anomalies in the Apollo photos , but sadly you will always claim that no anomalies exist ... That is what is known as being in a state of denial ... and unfortunately it makes you blind to anything except your own closed minded opinion .

Thanks for posting that, Duane. Now show them the one with the

light reflecting off of the backdrop. Light, of course, does not bounce

off of the atmosphere free lunar sky.

Jack

Tell me Jack, just how many backdrop have you lit? You have any massive experience with studio lighting...and not just what you have admitted to me...shooting product boxes in your agency conference room.

In any case, your "reflected light" has already been delt with in aouther thread, its dirt on the lens Jack, causing flare. Wanna try again?

But lets assume you are correct and its a reflection of the "studio light sun". Physics are at play here WHite. Try this one on for size; THE ANGLE OF INCIDENCE EQUALS ANGLE OF REFLECTION. You have indicatred where YOU think the 'sun' is placed, so PLEASE INDICATE HOW this light placement can create TWO reflections that fit the angle of incidence law?

Maybe you can do some more of your silly "enhancements", you know the ones where you jack the tones around in an image in a vane attempt to make the ignorant think you know what you are doing. They are really pretty but utterly useless.

[Craig Lamson]

Just want to ask that if this shadow is directly behind the person and appears angled because it's being cast on a sloped surface, isn't it odd that his right (frontmost) boot isn't at the same slope?

It is at the same slope.

[Jack White]

Here ya go Craig ... This one's for you , compliments of Jack ....

Prove me wrong anytime you can, I welcome it.

The problem with that challenge is that I can prove you wrong a dozen times , by showing you numerous anomalies in the Apollo photos , but sadly you will always claim that no anomalies exist ... That is what is known as being in a state of denial ... and unfortunately it makes you blind to anything except your own closed minded opinion .

Thanks for posting that, Duane. Now show them the one with the

light reflecting off of the backdrop. Light, of course, does not bounce

off of the atmosphere free lunar sky.

Jack

Tell me Jack, just how many backdrop have you lit? You have any massive experience with studio lighting...and not just what you have admitted to me...shooting product boxes in your agency conference room.

In any case, your "reflected light" has already been delt with in aouther thread, its dirt on the lens Jack, causing flare. Wanna try again?

But lets assume you are correct and its a reflection of the "studio light sun". Physics are at play here WHite. Try this one on for size; THE ANGLE OF INCIDENCE EQUALS ANGLE OF REFLECTION. You have indicatred where YOU think the 'sun' is placed, so PLEASE INDICATE HOW this light placement can create TWO reflections that fit the angle of incidence law?

Maybe you can do some more of your silly "enhancements", you know the ones where you jack the tones around in an image in a vane attempt to make the ignorant think you know what you are doing. They are really pretty but utterly useless.

What complete nonsense!

...show us proof that "dirty lenses" caused "flares" but did not affect the photo quality

...show us how a flare can occur when the light source is at a right angle to the lens

...show us why the flare registered only in the green and blue layers, but not the red

...show us how reflection can occur in a solid black sky with no atmosphere

...show us why multiple studio lights cannot have multiple angles of incidence*

...show where I said the "sun" is placed; in a big studio, MULTIPLE lights are used

...and you ought to learn spelling...delt, aouther, indicatred, vane...or people will think

you are one of the "ignorant".

Jack

*each surface in a photo setup has its own angle of incidence to each light being used.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Here ya go craig ... Here's Jack's second present for you !

Oh , and it's for you too Dave .. I wouldn't want you to feel left out ... ( I bet Dave is gonna say that's just "lens flare" ...Besides "smudges or scratches on the visor , that's his second most used excuse )

Thanks, Duane. I await the explanation of why the "lens flare" of the red doughnut

STOPS AT THE HORIZON LINE without also affecting the lunar surface.

Jack