Evan Burton

Original image from above, with no alterations at all. Original size, no annotations.

Duane...a favorite tactic of provocateurs:

1. Misquote your opponent, setting up a "strawman"

2. Attack the strawman, hoping observers will believe it is true.

Here, they misquote my position, and then attack the misquote.

Let me once again clearly state my position, which they have

not addressed as yet:

1. The shadow of the backlighted photographer MUST ORIGINATE

AT HIS FEET.

2. Using a chest mounted camera and facing forward, the camera

necessarily is directly ABOVE THE FEET and pointing forward.

3. THEREFORE, the line of sight of the camera, being directly

above the feet MUST show the photographer's shadow pointing

TOWARD the BOTTOM CENTER of the image, where the feet

would be if they were in the photo. Since the feet are not in

the image, the operative word is TOWARD the feet, which

necessarily at bottom center (if the photo is extended).

The provocateurs have provided several bogus attempts to

prove me wrong. Laughably, some of their images prove me

correct. The shadows in their photos show a person standing

sideways with the camera at shoulder level. No photo yet

shows the feet of the photographer. No assurance is provided

that the images are uncropped. All attempts posted so far

to "prove me wrong" are bogus. When/if they post an image

with the shadow going to the feet, under similar parameters

of the Apollo photos, they may have something.

Jack

I did NOT misquote you. I have used your exact words as stated by you on either your "studies" from the Aulis website or your posts here. I gave links to the sources of the quotes, so people could independently check that I was not misquoting you.

Now, let's examine your conditions:

1. The shadow of the backlighted photographer MUST ORIGINATE

AT HIS FEET.

2. Using a chest mounted camera and facing forward, the camera

necessarily is directly ABOVE THE FEET and pointing forward.

Taken this morning by myself:

The image was taken with a Fuji Finepix S5000 digital camera. I have added the annotations, and reduced it to 25% of the original size (constraining the original proportions). It has not been cropped in any way.

It meets your conditions, and proves that you are wrong.

How long are we going to be kept in suspense?

I originally thought that he probably was guilty. After reading more of John's posts, I began to think that things were not necessarily as they appeared.

What was this new information, John? is it conclusive or speculative?

If a person states a fact, a fact which can be proven, then it doesn't matter who utters the fact. The fact IS, can withstand examination, and rather than hide from people who dispute it goes toward them, knowing it is a fact and incontrovertible.

Facts are stubborn things.

What constitutes a fact, or proof can often be a very subjective judgement. An internet forum or website is far different than a court of law.

All the disagreements that occur here on a daily basis should be "proof" of that. People are stubborn too.

That's quite true, but that it is why it important to try to differentiate between an opinion of some description, and a fact.

Continuing on my 9/11 theme, it would be an opinion that the proposed hijackers were capable of carrying out the manoeuvres required for aircraft to hit the targets. A qualified pilot may say yes, another qualified pilot may say no. You could have untrained people able to fly it, and other untrained people unable to fly it. It is not a condition which will always result in the same outcome.

A fact, on the other hand, is something that is repeatable in every case. Saying that a naked human being, with no flight aids, thrown off the top of a 100 foot+ building will eventually fall to the ground is fact.

That is why I do try to differentiate between the two. I try to differentiate between the subjective and the objective.

Now, on a side note Michael, you remind me of what in political terms the Democrats were in Australia. They were, in Don Chipp's words, there to "keep the bastards honest". Keep up the good work.

I expect the normal howls of protest, but I think that you Peter should be actually putting forward some type of major point rather than just posting material that is pro your view.

Do you think it would be acceptable for me to post material that simply supports my view? I might put forward a view and ask people to try and challenge it, but if I just post material which is pro my view...

The way things are going I might post a couple of threads to do with developments based on Apollo-era technology, or large quotes from websites which support my own view that 9/11 was nothing more than a terrorist action - nothing to do with Bush, the CIA, or even a New World Order.

If you have a point to make, could I ask you to simply make it? Otherwise we are going to clog up the Forum with long rants from all sides.

Please - be concise. An example might be:

Some people still deny the obvious - that 9/11 could not have happened as proposed by the 9/11 Commission Report. Those of who disagree with that report are often accused of not having experts to back our opinions; this is not so. There are many people, with qualifications in the fields, that believe the 9/11 report is wrong:

www.truthersitefortruth.org

anothertruthersite.net.

crossdressingtruthers.whaheyhey

etc, etc.

(please pardon my injection of humour; you can't be too serious all the time...)

Burton believes that:

"If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach"

AMAZING! ASTOUNDING! He thinks "TRUTHERS" should be held to a higher

standard than LIARS. What bias!

I suppose you could call it bias. I think that truth should be able to withstand any scrutiny. Anyone who proclaims something as being the truth should have no fear of that 'truth' being examined.

It reminds me of how you, and others, call people disinformation agents.

If a person states a fact, a fact which can be proven, then it doesn't matter who utters the fact. The fact IS, can withstand examination, and rather than hide from people who dispute it goes toward them, knowing it is a fact and incontrovertible.

Facts are stubborn things.

Duane, look at the jerk's ad hominem attack on me at the bottom of his posting.

If the shoe fits....

You had three chances to prove you were a person of your word. You didn't take those opportunities. Don't blame me for your own actions.

You can always prove me wrong by admitting your error, and I will likewise discontinue the use of this particular signature line.

I don't know about that.

I'm gainfully employed, clean the house, do washing, mow the lawns, feed the dog, go to dinner with friends, watch movies and still have time to highlight your errors. It's not that difficult.

Oh now "haze" is a form of "lens flare" also ... LOL

"When a bright light source is shining on the lens but not in its field of view, lens flare appears as a haze that washes out the image and reduces contrast."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare

"Flare is not an aberration, but it may impair the image more than the residual aberrations in a photographic lens. Manifestations of flare are diverse and range from colored patches, ghost images, haloes, a haze over the entire image, and any mixture or variation."

Source: http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/flare.html

"Flare, more properly referred to as veiling glare, is the haze that covers all or part of your image when extraneous light reaches the film."

Source: http://www.shutterbug.net/techniques/light...0899sb_beating/

"Lens flares are caused by the refraction of the light from the light source inside the lens of the camera, causing it to spread out and become a haze that obscures the remainder of the image"

Source: http://216.55.161.203/theonekea/university/Midterm.doc

"Flare comes in two different incarnations - contrast deterioration and ghostings. The contrast deterioration is visible by a more a less severe haze so colors appear to be washed out."

Source: http://www.photozone.de/3Technology/lenstec3.htm

Duane, your ignorance is showing.

Deleted thread entitled "Overkill" as it did not actually raise any topic for discussion that would be permitted on this forum, was merely a complaint in some ways (use the complaints thread), and was developing into a thread which contained nothing but bickering and insults at one another.

Do you have anything other than rhetoric?

Yes , I do ... A big pile of faked Apollo photos full of anomalies . Gross ignorance

There ya go - I fixed it for you.

I believe that the US should get out of Iraq post haste... but what do you say to the experienced soldiers who say it is a massive mistake?

Not one or two people, but a significant number. Despite what they say, I'd like to see an orderly handover to Iraqi force - but they are the people who have been on the front edge of the forces.

What do we say to them?

Ring the Air Traffic Control at the airport and ask them; they are the ones who have the records.

When I lived in Cairns, Queensland, Australia, I lived in the northern beaches at a place called Yorkeys Knob. My house was directly on the centreline for the runway at about 3.5nm to touchdown.

We used to have a Qantas 747 go overhead at 0430 every morning. It woke me up for a few minutes during the first week, then I ignored it.

Can Jack or Duane rebut this? No "He is an Apollogist" or "Typical disinformation from Lamson" - just PROVE that what Craig has done is flawed or incorrect. Simply point out where his errors lay, if any. Don't forget to support your rebuttal. Simply saying "WRONG!" does not mean anything unless you can demonstrate why it is wrong.

Proof - plain and simple.

Attack the argument, not the poster.

That, of course, is from someone who was actually responsible for the building. It could be argued that they would support a pro-conspiracy view in order to maintain their professional reputation, that it could withstand such impacts and survive, that the only possible reason for a collapse was demolition... but he doesn't.

(Awaits the inevitable CT nonsense)

Upon further reading, there does seem to be some dispute as to whether Robinson designed the towers for a 707 impact, or whether he later calculated that they would be able to withstand one.

What is perhaps important is what he does say:

To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

Perhaps even more importantly he says:

The events of September 11 ended the lives of almost 2,900 people, many of them snuffed out by the collapse of structures designed by me. The damage created by the impact of the aircraft was followed by raging fires, which were enormously enhanced by the fuel aboard the aircraft. The temperatures above the impact zones must have been unimaginable; none of us will ever forget the sight of those who took destiny into their own hands by leaping into space.

It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/webli...CB?OpenDocument

It is a fair call to ask the source; we do the same and so anyone else should have the same right.

The owner of the website says the image is an enlargement from a series taken by a NYPD photographer, possibly Dave Fitzpatrick.

More images, though, are available here:

http://nvrfrgt.com/html/911_pictures.html

There are lots of pictures available from that website. You can check on where they came from by asking the owner of the website.

Why do you think Jack will not admit he was wrong about the shadows?

I'm sorry, but I don't have the answer to that question ... and I can't speak for Jack .

I fully acknowledge that being wrong about this particular claim does not automatically make his other claims wrong... mere this particular claim:

That would have to be the most intelligent thing ever written by someone who defends the official Apollo record .... Thank you .

I stand by my statements. None of the proffered photos show the feet of the photographer.

Some appear to be cropped. Some actually show the shadow GOING TOWARD THE CENTER

OF THE PICTURE as I have said. Show me some pix with the FEET of the photographer. Till

then, keep wasting your time and misrepresenting my position.

Jack

I have used your quotes exactly as they have appeared, either in your posts or in your studies.

You have said:

"Axis of shadow must point towards bottom center"

(Source: http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_6.html)

and

"...if the shadow DOES NOT POINT TOWARD the center of the photo it cannot be an uncropped original photo..."

(Source: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t&p=117329)

This is just so people can confirm for themselves that I have not distorted or misquoted you in any way.

I have on older threads posted images which completely disprove your statements.

Craig has posted images which completely disprove your statements.

Dave has posted images which completely disprove your statements.

I have posted images, taken by people completely unassociated with this forum, debunking, Apollo, NASA, any government agency, etc, which completely disprove your statements.

You have been given several opportunities to admit that you had made an error:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=119343

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=119353

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=119828

Yet despite all this, you still claim that you are right. This from the person who claims:

2. Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager

than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT.

The previous examples prove you are dishonest regarding the boast above, and you deliberately make claims which you know to be untrue.

I will now reinstate your quote to my signature line, as you have proven by your own actions that you do not live up to your own undertakings.

"Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT." - Jack White

Little White Lies

Pity they have such a hard time explaining events such as this:

(F-4 Phantom on rocket sled hitting concrete at Sandia National Labs)

or engineers, in consultation with computer programmers, who actually do computer analysis and modeling rather than speculation:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/

Even water can cut through steel under the right conditions:

(Water jet cutting through 3" steel plate)

Duane...you and I have it far easier than the defenders of the fake photos.

We can afford to be mistaken occasionally, and sometimes are...but the

fake-defenders MUST BE CORRECT A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TIME,

and you and I only need to be right ONE TIME. If they admit even one

Apollo photo is faked...THEY LOSE! That is why they get frantic when we

get close to the truth.

Jack

I never realized that Jack ... No wonder the defenders of Apollo will never admit to any of the anomalies in the Apollo photography .

If nasa faked one then ..... Yep , makes perfect sense now why all the dishonest game playing takes place on every forum where this is discussed .

It also explains why you and David are constantly charactrer assassinated ... If all of your studies were really wrong , then arses like Lamson wouldn't be bothered with you , or be so obsessed in trying to disprove your hoax evidence ....

Duane,

Why do you think Jack will not admit he was wrong about the shadows?

I fully acknowledge that being wrong about this particular claim does not automatically make his other claims wrong... mere this particular claim:

Non-Apollo, non-debunker images from people who have nothing to do with myself:

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

Source: http://www.sylviastuurman.nl/sitemap/foto/english.php

Source: http://www.art.com/asp/sp-asp/_/PD--120807...ong_Shadows.htm

Once again:

Jack - you made statements about shadows in images (must go to bottom centre) which have been proven on multiple occasions to be incorrect. Will you withdraw those comments?

Many of his claims are false for example it's simply not true that the "towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft," there design was reviewed and it was determined it could withstand a single impact from a 707. The is dispute about whether this study calculated for aplane at approach speed or 600 mph but the lead engineer says it was the latter.

That is also what I understand. It was not designed to withstand an impact, but the lead engineer said he believed it would be able to. The funny thing is there are no calculation to support this.

Removed accusations of motives and impropriety from this post:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=119809

In the "Jack White and David Percy...., and the Apollo offset shadow issue" thread.

But the bottom line is this Lamson ... This ONE STUDY DOES NOT MAKE OR BREAK THE APOLLO HOAX EVIDENCE ... and you haven't stopped these gentlemen from exposiing nasa's lies by a long shot .

No, but it would be nice to see Jack display some honesty and admit he was wrong about his claims regarding the shadows. It has been proven time and time again he is wrong - but he will not admit it.

HOW ABSURD! Lamson's other images did not show a photographer's shadow!

Photos of the "camera stand" did have shadows pointing correctly, with a person

standing to one side. What a hoax! I use images which seemed to show a

photographer.

Jack

You have said:

"Axis of shadow must point towards bottom center"

and

"...if the shadow DOES NOT POINT TOWARD the center of the photo it cannot be an uncropped original photo..."

Then, once more - how do you explain these images?

Are all these people taking 'faked' photographs?