Craig Lamson

Jack Thanks for taking the time to reply. I believe you are completely wrong about needing the horizon in the image as a comparison, but nonetheless here is another photo taken on the same day, which does include the horizon. No cropping, just resized for the forum, and levels changed to enhance the shadows. You state that in my original photo, some shadows (extended) go to the same vahishing point as the photographer, and some don't - you then claim this is unlikely! Well, I took these photos just a couple of days ago, you can even have copies of the high resolution (2848x2136) originals if you wish. Or, you could recreate the scene yourself if you suspect me of somehow manipulating the direction of the shadows. You may think it unlikely, but it's perfectly normal when taking a picture of an imperfect scene - the beach isn't completely flat, and the rocks casting the shadows are irregular. Just like in the Apollo photos - the surface isn't completely level, it's pocked with small craters, the rocks are irregular shapes. So, what do you make of my photo that includes the horizon? Thanks. Thanks for the very good photo which EXACTLY ILLUSTRATES HOW VANISHING POINTS WORK! The only thing obviously wrong was the red arrows you placed on the image. I doubt that you were trying to deceive; you just did not know how to draw the lines. Using the photographer image as an excellent starting point, I drew lines to the horizon through all easily discernable shadows, and given that the ground may not be perfectly level, all obeyed the laws of perspective within an acceptable tolerance. The main anomaly appears in the lower left where a stick is casting a shadow in another direction...BUT WE DO NOT KNOW THE SHAPE AND ANGLE TO THE GROUND OF THE STICK. Since the stick clearly is not vertical, it is hard to say where its shadow should point. Another problem is that you have identified several dark spots near the water as shadows, when in fact they are unidentifiable. I would post my analysis of the photo, but I can no longer post images here because my Mac is too old for the new software. I appreciate the photo, which illustrates a vanishing point well. I would appreciate a version without the red arrows, which were poorly placed. I will draw some lines on it and maybe I can get someone to post it here. I may even add it to my Aulis study showing how perspective really works. Good photo. Thanks. Jack Jack The photo shows the phenomenon that you question with your Apollo studies. Stating that a horizon was necessary for a comparison was something of a strawman. Anyone with a camera can easily recreate the scene you claim is evidence of fakery. However, I said you could have the original, and you requested it, I'll email it to you - do you still have the flash.net address? If not please let me know your current address (I don't want to paste it here for bandwidth reasons). The arrows I've drawn may not be 100% congruent with the direction of shadows (they were done by eye), but I think they're close - certainly as accurate as the blue arrows in your photo. Incidentally, you may have missed the photos I posted rebutting your assertion about a photographers shadow always falling to the bottom centre - much appreciated if you could look at that one again. Cheers My email address is jwjfk@flash.net, but I think you should post it on the forum. Everyone interested should be able to do this for themselves if they want. By the way, I am aware of many photographic tricks. See my later message regarding the origin of shadows, and I would appreciate you performing the experiment I requested. Here is what your photos will show: 1. The shadows of your legs will originate AT YOUR FEET, which I have asked you photograph. 2. If you stand erect with your head above your feet and the camera at your eye as I requested AND PHOTOGRAPH YOUR FEET, your feet will will be at the bottom CENTER of the UNCROPPED PHOTO...because the camera is centered on the scene above your feet. 3. The shadow of your legs, torso and head will follow the line of perspective to the horizon. I expect you to be honorable in this test and not attempt to hold the camera at some oblique angle to make the shadows go sideways. The object is to capture the shadow with the sun DIRECTLY behind you. It is impossible to photograph your shadow and not have it connect to your feet. Thanks for your cooperation. Jack I see you are trying to build another STRAWMAN to knock down Jack. The question at hand as posed by your 'study" is: Is it possible for the shadow of Armstrong to be real if it is located anywhere but the center of the image. You claim no, because your STRAWMAN states the the shadow must go to the photographers feet, and that a photographer cannot stand beside his shadow. This is correct BUT IT HAS NO BEARING on the issue of where the EXTENDED SHADOW OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER IS PLACED IN THE IMAGE. The shadow can AND WILL be located at the sides of the frame if the photographer simply turns his pov either right or left. This can and has been proven by emperical example by many people. That you HAVE NOT done the simple test speaks volumes. You are simply not being intellectually honest. The correct test to check your claim that the shadow in the Armstrong image is impossible is to take a photograph just like Dave has done, and it proves your claim false. Are you ever going to be a man and admit it? Photographing a shadow of your feet is a simply strawman argument. Added on edit. You know whats really funny Jack, even the strawman argument you have tried to construct is wrong. If you take a picture of your shadow with the sun directly behind you that shows your feet, the shadow and your feet do NOT have to be in the center of the frame as you claim. Oh they will be if you frame the picture with your feet in the center, but by simply aiming the camera to the left, you can have your feet and the shadow in the RIGHT SIDE OF THE FRAME, or is you aim your camera right, you can have your feet and shadow on the left side of the frame! This is just too funny for words.

Jack Thanks for taking the time to reply. I believe you are completely wrong about needing the horizon in the image as a comparison, but nonetheless here is another photo taken on the same day, which does include the horizon. No cropping, just resized for the forum, and levels changed to enhance the shadows. You state that in my original photo, some shadows (extended) go to the same vahishing point as the photographer, and some don't - you then claim this is unlikely! Well, I took these photos just a couple of days ago, you can even have copies of the high resolution (2848x2136) originals if you wish. Or, you could recreate the scene yourself if you suspect me of somehow manipulating the direction of the shadows. You may think it unlikely, but it's perfectly normal when taking a picture of an imperfect scene - the beach isn't completely flat, and the rocks casting the shadows are irregular. Just like in the Apollo photos - the surface isn't completely level, it's pocked with small craters, the rocks are irregular shapes. So, what do you make of my photo that includes the horizon? Thanks. Thanks for the very good photo which EXACTLY ILLUSTRATES HOW VANISHING POINTS WORK! The only thing obviously wrong was the red arrows you placed on the image. I doubt that you were trying to deceive; you just did not know how to draw the lines. Using the photographer image as an excellent starting point, I drew lines to the horizon through all easily discernable shadows, and given that the ground may not be perfectly level, all obeyed the laws of perspective within an acceptable tolerance. The main anomaly appears in the lower left where a stick is casting a shadow in another direction...BUT WE DO NOT KNOW THE SHAPE AND ANGLE TO THE GROUND OF THE STICK. Since the stick clearly is not vertical, it is hard to say where its shadow should point. Another problem is that you have identified several dark spots near the water as shadows, when in fact they are unidentifiable. I would post my analysis of the photo, but I can no longer post images here because my Mac is too old for the new software. I appreciate the photo, which illustrates a vanishing point well. I would appreciate a version without the red arrows, which were poorly placed. I will draw some lines on it and maybe I can get someone to post it here. I may even add it to my Aulis study showing how perspective really works. Good photo. Thanks. Jack As I said, thanks for your helpful illustration of perspective of shadows. Now, if you would do me another favor. Next time you are on the beach with your camera at sunset (sunrise?), do this experiment. With the sun BEHIND you and holding the camera to your eye, standing erect, PLEASE POINT THE CAMERA DOWN ENOUGH TO TAKE A PHOTO OF YOUR SHADOW WHICH INCLUDES YOUR FEET IN THE IMAGE. You will not be able to get the entire shadow in the photo, but do it anyway; from the same stance, also take another photo of your shadow with your camera aimed to include the horizon. Let us see your results. Thank you for being so helpful. Jack A few questions Jack. You claim that the shadows in Daves horizon image all fall as they should, that they are palallel with respect to perspective WHEN YOU DRAW THE LINES...is that correct? Your claim is that Dave cannot correctly draw lines indicating the direction of shadows? Second you have still failed to deal with this first image. Regardless of the fact that the horizon is missing, the shadows clearly are not parallel with repect to perspective. Is it your claim that the laws of perspective and parallel light rays are null and void when the horizon is no included in the image? Daves first images shows many differnt shadow directions. How can you explain this? Finally, you have failed to deal with Daves offset shadow image. You claim it is impossible for the shadow of photographer with the sun behind his back to be anywhere in the photograph but the center of the image. Is this a correct statement? If so how do you explain the shadow in Dave image?

We can discount your "belief" and we can discount your "opinion" and we are dealing with your "facts'. What has been shown is that your "facts" are anything but. Adn thats the problems. You can't rebut it, so you are left with spewing 'opinion" and "belief" neither of which carries any weight. So keep bringing on your "facts". they are highly amusing!

No Jack has not responded. He posted a strawman in the hopes of defusing the truth. Too bad for him the fuse went out when Dave posed his second image and I posted the VPA of Jacks original claim. No he CAN'T reply, unles he want to admit defeat. His claims lay in tatters on the floor, along with his reputation. Heres a news flash for you Dunne, this is not about 'opinion" nor is it about "belief" Its about hard scientific fact. There is no midlle ground, there is no gray. Its a simple case of black and white, right and wrong....and Jack (and you by extention because you are nodding your head in agreement even though you don't understand the argument) is simply WRONG!

What, you can't supply and answer AGAIN? Why am I not suprised. Oh and I see Jack can't supply an answer either as he was just here as well. You ever gonna quit hiding and let your name be seen when you are here? You ashamed or something?

So tell me Duane, since Jack is totally wrong on how light and shadow work, as are you btw as shown in the Debunking Duane part 2 thread, what term do you suggest I use to describe his lack of knowlege in this matter. Of course Jack has nothing he can say but, I was wrong. He choses to say nothing becauses to admit error, which is not intellectually honest. I'm sure Jack has no problem with the term ignorant, he likes to use it himself. And I'm not sure I would use the words polite nor honorable to describe Jack. BTW, I see your new rule to ignore my postings lasted what...8 hours? Sheesh.

No, its not. Jack is intelllectual dishonest with his photo work. A perfect example is the tread running right now where his "study" of Apollo shadows has been proven wrong with emperical evidence. Jack has had more than enough time to be a man and admit he is wrong...and yet we can expect the standard from Jack on this one..he will ignore it. I have seen people here state they respect Jack and I have to ask WHY? You repect a dishonest person? What does that make you? The same can be said for you Duane. You have been proven wrong with irrefutable evidence and yet you still proclaim your silly claims to be correct. No Duane you are being treated EXACTYLY as your actions demand. You have been politely rebutted time and time again. Give that, your own words show you fit all of the above to a tee. Why sould we let up? You continue to avoid dealing with the error of your postings. And of course now you walk away, but the reason is your inability to deal with the truth that is being presented that refutes your postings. I am dissapointed. You are being given a chance to actually learn something instead you choose to wallow in your self proclaimed ignorance. Do something positve for a change Duane...open your mind and actually LEARN THE TRUTH!

I want you to know Bernice that the images Jack is having you post look very familar to the paintings Van Gogh was creating just before he went totally mad and cut his ear off. Bill, do you happen to have a copy of the Dorman frame Jack had someone post in this thread. It seems to have gone missing and I could really use a copy for another subject. Thanks

Your example is not comparable to the Apollo image. The Apollo image INCLUDES THE HORIZON and your image does NOT. The horizon is essential to a comparison. Like railroad tracks, sunrays are parallel, and as such CAST SHADOWS THAT ARE PARALLEL. Like railroad tracks, such shadows must follow THE LAWS OF PERSPECTIVE, and thus must all vanish to the same point on the horizon. You never see railroad tracks going in divergent directions; the two rails converge at the horizon. In your photo, some shadows (when extended) go to the same vanishing point as the photographer, and SOME DO NOT. This is unlikely to happen, I think. A better experiment would be to find a long straight road with telephone poles alongside, and photograph it when the sun is low. The road and roadstripes will vanish to a point on the horizon. The tops and bottoms of the poles will vanish to the same point, and the POLE SHADOWS will vanish to the same point. You will NOT have shadows of the poles crossing the roadway in some other direction. Jack You REALLY don't undersrtand any of this do you Jack? Your statement about needing the horizon is simply a strawman. You should know better. Daves image is a great comparison to your Apollo sample. In both images the shadows are parallel. If you could view these scenes from directly above thats exactly what you would see. What is causing the shadow to APPEAR not to be parallel is a combination of perspective, viewing angle and the actual SHAPE of the objects casting the shadows. In the Apollo image we also have to include changes in the landscape. To take this one step further, we can do a vanishing point analysis. Joe Durnavich did exactly that to one of your "studies" that claimed non-parallel shadows. What he found was that the shadows did indeed trace to a common vanishing point. You were proven wrong. His study can be found here: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/images/vpajw1.jpg The discussion here: http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...5198&page=3 Bottom line is you have simply shown your ignorance about the properties of light and shadow. BTW, your suggestion that a road and phone pole be used as a test stinks. Phone poles are almost never vertical, the lean all over the place. Daves test worked just perfectly. Oh, and how do you explain the non -parallel shadows in the Dorman Frame you had posted over on the JFK Forum? Note: The red lines are Joe's VPA and show the shadows all converge on a single vanishing point.

Duane...yes, I addressed it already. The things that "look like sunrays" coming from behind clouds are actually SHADOWS of the clouds upon atmospheric particles in the air. Viewed from a close perspective (compared to the sun), the close clouds cast shadows that are true to the laws of perspective. It is a false analogy to call this phenomenon SUNRAYS. Jack Back up the bus there Jcack, its not the SHADOWS you are seeing, ITS THE SUNLIGHT! AS usual you have it totally backwards.

Person 1. A poorly "enhanced" crop of a low resolution internet image that shows a jumbled up mess of JPG artifacts. This image is useless.

1. Not if the package was left open or sealed a vacuum 2. So what? 3. No that makes an unproven assumption of the surface temp at the time the package was placed on the surface. PS. Why are you afraid to let people see your name when you log into this forum?

You didn't bother reading that link I gave you about lens flare did you? No need to respond, I think I know the answer... More smudges on the visor ?? .. Er, I mean , more lens flare ?? But I thought those very expensive Hassleblad moon cameras with their regular Kodac LAND film would not have taken so many photos of lens flare ..... So let me get this straight ... You mean to say that "smudges on the visors" and "lens flare" account for all the anomalies in the faked Apollo photographs ? Well why didn't you just say so in the first place ? .. Then I might have believed the Apollo photos were really taken on the moon , and wouldn't have wasted all this time thinking they were all staged on moon sets !! Uh Dunae...that would be Koda"K" film. Once again, the name Land Film is the property of the Polaroid Corp, so named because of the inventor Edwin Land. The devil is in the details, Duane. If you had a clue about quality camera optics it would be clear to you that regardles of the brand or expence, ANY lens will be subject to flare when pointed directly at the light source. You posted example offers one more nail in the coffin of the idea that all the Apollo images were picture postcard perfect.

.An exact quote would be helpful did he express disbelief or surprise? I am also not sure he would know exactly what kind of film the camera would use or would be especially qualified to judge the quality of Apollo photography. If he said the cameras used “Kodak Land film” he would have demonstrated shocking ignorance of the subject. Nothing like asking Hasselblad themselves for their own opinion - here's the reply I received a few months ago. Bizarrely, an HBer from a different forum called me "creepy" for contacting them. Strange. Oh NO! "THEY"have gotten to Hasselblad!

Just for the record, and to clear up the misinformation posted here by White, I was not "banned" from JFKResearch for abusive behavior, DellaRosa "banned" me because he claimed I was cross posting, which was false. White is also incorrect in his statement that I offered no research to JFKRESEARCH. He knows full well that debunked quite a few of his fradulant claims with solid emperical evidence. He also knows I played a big part in the research that was posted at JFKRESEARCH that trashed his claim of Moorman in the street. Of course Jack making these false claims is a personal attack....

Like Groden has said, "Jack is almost always wrong". This is information I obtained from Gary Mack, "Jack's information is inaccurate. The original Bronson slide is only a little underexposed, but it is much brighter than Jack's very dark copies. The version on Trask's POTP is much closer to the original than anything Jack has shown. Furthermore, the FBI NEVER had possession of the Bronson slides or movies. Two FBI agents viewed them WITH Bronson at Kodak on Monday afternoon, 11/25, then Bronson went home with the pictures. Until Earl Golz and I visited him on November 9, 1978, no one outside of Bronson's family had ever seen them and they were never out of his possession." Bill Miller My slide copies are extremely close to the original. The Bronson MOVIE WAS VIEWED BY THE FBI. The DMN ran a front page story on some early frames in which Groden had found a person moving in the window next to the SN. Bronson shot it during the epilectic seisure incident; if you look carefully you can see the ambulance...the reason Bronson shot the brief sequence. Much was made at the time that THE FBI WAS NOT INTERESTED IN THE MOVIE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SHOW THE SIXTH FLOOR WINDOW, though Groden did find the window in the few early frames. Groden has NEVER said "Jack is almost always wrong." This is a lie. Jack If your copies are "extremely close to the original" then why do they show blown highlights and blocked shadows, which indicate a poor duplication job? Craig, It is possible that the problem with the posted image is in the digital domain and not in the analog (photographic) process. It is impossible for me to know, though, as I do not have the slide from which to compare. Perhaps, but without a doubt duplication also causes the problems of blown highlights and blocked shadows. I've seen no indication that the digital representation presented here differs from the dupicate slides produced by Jack. We also have Gary Macks description of Jacks duplicates as being "dark" which is also indicated in the digital file posted here. The 'darkness" is the blocked shadows. If the film duplicate is blocked and the digital version is blocked it leads to the conclusion that the duplicate was of poor quality perhaps created using camera original film stock or the inferior Kodak SE duplication stock. Its simply a case of contrast build during duplication.

Like Groden has said, "Jack is almost always wrong". This is information I obtained from Gary Mack, "Jack's information is inaccurate. The original Bronson slide is only a little underexposed, but it is much brighter than Jack's very dark copies. The version on Trask's POTP is much closer to the original than anything Jack has shown. Furthermore, the FBI NEVER had possession of the Bronson slides or movies. Two FBI agents viewed them WITH Bronson at Kodak on Monday afternoon, 11/25, then Bronson went home with the pictures. Until Earl Golz and I visited him on November 9, 1978, no one outside of Bronson's family had ever seen them and they were never out of his possession." Bill Miller My slide copies are extremely close to the original. The Bronson MOVIE WAS VIEWED BY THE FBI. The DMN ran a front page story on some early frames in which Groden had found a person moving in the window next to the SN. Bronson shot it during the epilectic seisure incident; if you look carefully you can see the ambulance...the reason Bronson shot the brief sequence. Much was made at the time that THE FBI WAS NOT INTERESTED IN THE MOVIE BECAUSE IT DID NOT SHOW THE SIXTH FLOOR WINDOW, though Groden did find the window in the few early frames. Groden has NEVER said "Jack is almost always wrong." This is a lie. Jack If your copies are "extremely close to the original" then why do they show blown highlights and blocked shadows, which indicate a poor duplication job?

duane, I've not attempted to debunk Nathan Jones faq. I've pointed out that Jays works is indeed a masterpiece and it is superb in the areas of my understanding. As such WHY should I attempt to add more? As for the areas beyond my knowlegebase, I will not argue those points. Others wilth better qualifications can and have. You have shown that you have no knowlegebase for anay of this yet you argue it as if you do. Please explain IN DETAIL why Jays rebuttal to Jones is "lame" and why Jones is correct..

Why Should there have been still photos? Because YOU think so? More mindless drivel from our resident crackpot.

Read my original post again...if you can.

Well DUANE, Its you who is claiming you know who wrote the FAQ, we simply want your proof. So far all you have offered is a link to some Nathan Jones who was going to giv e short talk, and who's educational status is unknown and you have given us a Nathan Jones who is a professor of CHEMISTRY in Canada. SO you only have ONE person you can actually contact. WHy not do so? Or you can keep on deluding yourself that your ghost Nathan Jones, brother of Charles Hawkins is actually real. ROFLMAO! WHy should I redo the wonderful debunking of your latest spook by Jay? Its a masterpiece! And I have to laugh when the master of cut and paste, Duane, talks about original works....

You are kididng...right? SO which one of these DIFFERENT PEOPLE is the Nathan Jones who wrote the APOLLO FAQ? Or is it even any of these. ANd of course there is the fine DEBUNKING of YOUR nathan Jones by Jay Widley. You will also notice if you read Jays comments that duringhis exchange with Jones on the usenet, Jones FAILED TO DISCLOSE HIS QUALIFICATIONS...wonder why. Sorry Duane you are simply grasping at straws and posting even more disinformation.....again

No Duane, you found a worthless link that was GENERATED BY YOUR SEARCH WORDS. You are simply unable to understand why you just hosed yourself. WHAT KIND of radiation Duane...and more importantly HOW MUCH? I don't have to "pretend you are ignorant" you show all of us every time you post. Like...look I found a link that says Kodak Land Film...ROFLMAO! SO why not write to Kodak as ask if they ever used the term Kodak Land Film to describe thier products? Lets eee if you really DID prove me wrong.

Duane, using the word ignorance in regard to your demonstrated lack of photographic knowlege is not an insult at all, it's simply the perfect word to describe the state of your understanding. ig·no·rance (ĭg'nər-əns) n. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed. lamson , using the word sociopathic in regard to your demonstrated lack of humanity is not an insult at all , it's simply the perfect word to describe the state of your sad mental condition . so·ci·o·path (ss--pth, -sh-) n. One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior. Duane, I see you have assumed you had the mental ability to either describe or insult another person....you don't. Me thinks the sociopath protests too much . Me thinks the ignorant no longer has an argument...

Wow...you found an AOL link! ROFLMAO! Ignorance to the max! So how many X-RAY are found on the moon? ROFLMAO! AGAIN! Oh and they didn't "change" film on the moon, they simply changed preloaded magazines, just like you can do with a Hasselblad here on earth. What a morron! You are so burnt Duane.... BTW Duane, do you still believe Neville is correct about a three light setup casts NO shadows?