Duane Daman

I haven't had the time to devote to taking any of my own photographs yet , but in studying the ones you lads have posted here , I have observed some very interesting things about shadows and the amount of light within shadows of photos that are taken out in bright sunlight .

And after looking at these photos , compared to the phony Apollo photos , I am even more convinced that the alleged moon photos were staged , using indoor lunar sets and artificial lighting .

I will expand upon this when I have more time and also get back with my own findings of off side shadows .

I want our landing site to be one of the original Apollo sites so that we can take images of the artifacts.

I am intrigued that you and the rest of the "geeks" believe that you would be able to produce the technology to actually soft land a craft on the moon , for the purpose of taking pictures of an alleged Apollo landing site .

Which makes me wonder ... If you and your friends can accomplish this amazing technical feat , then why doesn't NASA land a craft at an alleged Apollo landing site and take pictures of the stuff they claim was left behind ? ... I wonder if they think that possibly not many people would believe them and that their photos would be as faked as the first time around .

That's why I'd like Jack to be involved, to verify the integrity of the visual record.

You're kidding , right ? ... Now I do believe I've heard everything !

Excuse me for questioning your motives here , but aren't you one of the main players in character assassinating Jack, by claiming that all of his Apollo studies are incorrect and therefore he is not very adept at analyzing photographs ?

If you really believe that , then why on Earth ( or possibly the Moon ) would you want Jack to "verify the integrity of the visual record " , of something which you may never accomplish ?

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.

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

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 .

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 ?

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."

"I bet you would love to see that , seeing as how you defend every dirty deed the US government ever perpetrated , with the zeal of a Nazi stormtrooper ."

That's not the same thing as calling you a Nazi .

Now , since you are posting comments to me again , how about we get back on topic and you answer my three question to you .

You always seem to miss the point ... I personally never thought it was what you say that's the problem , but rather the way you say it .

I can't speak for what Charles believes about you , but I do agree with him that this type of discussion is pointless and a complete waste of time .

So I agree with you that this thread should be locked , as it should have never been started to begin with .

Various people have predicted Bush was “about” to attack Iran since at least 2004. Though I don’t put anything past him I hope that he not so insane as to attempt such a thing. I imagine doing would me wide scale resistance in the US military.

Last I looked Len, the Military (top brass included) took their orders from the President. They really have no choices but to follow a direct order, fail to follow a direct order and spend time in the brig, or resign. Unless you are advocating a coup.....

Unfortunately for everyone , Bush is that insane .

And a coup d'etat might be the only means to stop him .

A reply would do you no good, its all beyond you, and to refresh your memory as tyo why we will no longer having any further conversations....

That's a complete cop out and you know it ... So is bringing up a past argument .

If you had a reply that would benefit you , you would certainly not hesitate to post it , instead of looking like a dishonest fool .

* edited to add... You are also being dishonest in what you claim my post comments were to you .... but since you are so accomplished at copying and pasting old arguments , why don't you copy my post where you claim I called you a Nazi , and then we can all read what I really said .

Duane, the only way you'll prove it to yourself is to do it yourself.

Now that would be something to see...he mioght even learn something..about photography and about how Jack has pulled the wool over his eyes.

I see you still didn't bother to answer my three questions ... No surprise there ... So it looks to me like the only "wool " being pulled here would be yours .

Would you like to answer them now , or should I assume that you are unable to , as by doing so it will expose the tricks you employed to capture those certain off to the side feet photos ?

I believe what we have here is a very clever and deliberate failure to communicate .... Try reading "NASA PARAMETERS" again in Jack's study and then see how far your photography 101 lesson flys .

Thanks for the lesson in photography 101 but did you have to keep using that same boring picture ? ... 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 ?

I see your hand also and it's the same hand you have always played on this forum .... It's known as ... Let's all bash Jack and try to make him look like the bad guy !... Nice trick , since he's the one who exposes the real bad guys .

As interesting as your condescending photography lesson was though , I couldn't help but notice that you skipped right over my post and didn't even bother to answer my three questions to you ... So I will repeat them again and maybe his time you will have enough consideration to reply .

Three questions ...

Where is the proof that the feet pictures belong to the shadow pictures above them ?

Where is the proof that your pictures are uncropped ?

And more importantly , ( if you bothered to read Jack's latest study ) where is the proof in your feet piccys , that your camera was mounted to your chest and not held out to your side by several feet ?

If you care about the truth ...

STOP IT!

Charles ... I care very much about the truth ... That's why I take on guys like Kevin , Len and Craig .

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.

Let me save you some trouble....

Now you've gone a ruined everything ... And I was so looking forward to Kevin's artificially lit beach shadow photos ....

Very clever pictures indeed , but why haven't we seen this 'evidence' before ? ... After all , they are so much more convincing than your contortionist pictures .

Three questions ...

Where is the proof that the feet pictures belong to the shadow pictures above them ?

Where is the proof that your pictures are uncropped ?

And more importantly , ( if you bothered to read Jack's latest study ) where is the proof in your feet piccys , that your camera was mounted to your chest and not held out to your side by several feet ?

I was on topic by the way, this thread is not about anything other than you guys attacking Len. You are the one going off topic by making it about me.

Well , I guess you weren't finished arguing about nothing .... You're the one that made this all about you by saying .. " Awesome, you guys start threads attacking him, but when he tries to defend himself, you call it a distraction tactic. Bravo indeed."

I'm sure this is exactly what Len expected.

I'm sure this is exactly what Len wanted ... More dischord .

PS. I'm done with this thread, I don't want another pointless debate with Duane.

Then why did you jump into this one ? ... At least be truthful when posting such nonsense ... All people have to do it to scroll back to your previous comments to see what your motives were .

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 ..

Kevin .... In this situation , I don't believe the picture of the fence is appropriate to the discussion of astronaut's shadows .

Then you don't understand the geometry of the situation at all.

Since you seem to be so determined to prove Jack's study wrong , how about you take a similar photo as the one above , showing YOUR shadow instead of a fence post ? ... Or will you perhaps also have to turn into a contortionist to take that kind of picture ?

Will you accept artificial light, or complain that it's not the same as sunlight? Where I live, when the sun is close to the horizon, it's obstructed by hills and buildings. But I will be at the shore on saturday at sunrise, I'll bring my camera then.

Oh , and then take a picture of your shadow , also showing your feet standing to the side of the picture , and let's see what position your shadow is in then .

I don't understand the point of that, which of the apollo photos in question show the photographer's feet, and why would they be to the side?

Are you also a professional photographer ? ... Or perhaps just a "professional" debunker of Apollo hoax evidence ?

Neither, both are just a hobby for me.

BTW .... DISECTIING EVERY SINGLE LINE of your opponent's post is also part of the MO of a provocateur .... The pretense of debunking every single word that opposes your own beliefs , is also considered to be goading on some forums and not allowed .

Neither, both are just a hobby for me.

Then we do have something in common after all ! ... Though my hobby is debunking the authenticity of the Apollo photography , instead of defending it .

I asked you to include your feet in the beach or indoor photo , so we can see if Jack is correct about where the photographers feet are in relationship to his shadow .

"Any shadow of the photographer MUST lead to his feet, therefore must point toward the bottom center of the UNCROPPED photo."

Comprende' ?

[Will you accept artificial light, or complain that it's not the same as sunlight? Where I live, when the sun is close to the horizon, it's obstructed by hills and buildings. But I will be at the shore on saturday at sunrise, I'll bring my camera then.

Yes , considering the Apollo photographs in question were taken with a very BIG BRIGHT ARTIFICIAL LIGHT , I will be happy to accept that as your light source .

But how will I know if your pictures are cropped or not ? ... Not that I believe you would cheat or anything like that .

Awesome, you guys start threads attacking him, but when he tries to defend himself, you call it a distraction tactic. Bravo indeed.

Kevin .... The war is over with and hopefully we will all learn from this .. . Or does that maybe not go along with your particular agenda here ? ... It would seem that aside from spreading pro-Apollo disinformation , your main objective here might be trolling for an argument .

This isn't the UM "phunk" .... The members here are not only more intelligent , but not quite as inclined to play the type of dim witted , mob mentality mind games, which you all seem to enjoy so much on that forum .

It's very noble of you to come to Len's defense , but I do believe the main players in this ridiculous drama have already left the discussion .

You apparently need to learn the same lesson that Len does .... This forum is NOT all about you and your determination to goad , and thus anger , those you disagree with .

Duane, I have no intention to goad, you're just projecting. You are the one goading, when you say things like "dim witted , mob mentality mind games", accuse me of spreading disinformation and trolling.

AH .... "projecting" !! .... That would be one of the trigger words of goading , would it not ? ... Along with " hand waving" , "strawman" , "logical falicy " , etc. etc . etc.

Try not to be so predictable ... I now know what you're going to post before you even post it ....I wasn't goading you , but only showing you the truth of how you all conduct yourselves on the UM forum ... Don't be so "SENSITIVE" ! LOL

I am trying to show you how ridiculous you're acting in light of Peter's and Charles' comments about going off topic, by making this a personal war when it shouldn't be .

Now maybe we can stick to the subjects being discussed ... Or do you feel the need to argue some more about nothing ?

Kevin .... In this situation , I don't believe the picture of the fence is appropriate to the discussion of astronaut's shadows .

Since you seem to be so determined to prove Jack's study wrong , how about you take a similiar photo as the one above , showing YOUR shadow instead of a fence post ? ... Or will you perhaps also have to turn into a contortionist to take that kind of picture ?

Oh , and then take a picture of your shadow , also showing your feet standing to the side of the picture , and let's see what position your shadow is in then .

Are you also a professional photographer ? ... Or perhaps just a "professional" debunker of Apollo hoax evidence ?

Awesome, you guys start threads attacking him, but when he tries to defend himself, you call it a distraction tactic. Bravo indeed.

Kevin .... The war is over with and hopefully we will all learn from this .. . Or does that maybe not go along with your particular agenda here ? ... It would seem that aside from spreading pro-Apollo disinformation , your main objective here might be trolling for an argument .

This isn't the UM "phunk" .... The members here are not only more intelligent , but not quite as inclined to play the type of dim witted , mob mentality mind games, which you all seem to enjoy so much on that forum .

It's very noble of you to come to Len's defense , but I do believe the main players in this ridiculous drama have already left the discussion .

You apparently need to learn the same lesson that Len does .... This forum is NOT all about you and your determination to goad , and thus anger , those you disagree with .

The planet IMO is nearing its end, environmentally, politically, militarily, with lies too burdensom to survive. As they said back in the '70s - one is either a part of the solution, of part of the problem. Choose one. I am not going to keep up a dialogue....but go on my own way........best to you, but kindly join attempts to save Gaia from destruction at the hands of the only evil empire [with any meaningful power] extant...that being the USA. Perhaps it is just a difference of 'style'....or maybe more.

JFK was killed by the Oligarchy that rules America. So was RKF, MLK, Malcolm-X, they ran Watergate and overthrew over 100 countries, killed millions. This must end. If you understand he Jewish Holacaust, you should also understand this one now aimed at almost the entire planet, centered in the USA. Sometimes people have so little common ground, and they can not communicate. May you find your way to truth. Peace. Over and out.

Peter ... Your words are not only overwhelmingly tragic but IMO unfortunately true , and some of the most profound I have ever read on any discussion forum .

You have my admiration for ending this unnecessary online feud between you and Len ... Hopefully we will all learn from this and move on to discuss the various issues here , displaying more kindness and respect towards the members we disagree with .

bump

Evan ... As you well know , I am not a professional photographer ... but then if memory serves me correctly , neither are you .

Absolutely correct. At best I am an amateur. My point was, though, that neither of us can give a definitive or professional opinion as to either parties work.

I read Lamson's rebuttal evidence to Jack's study , and from what I could see, Craig admitted that Jack was CORRECT more than he said he wasn't .... I also read Jack's rebuttal to Lamson's photo evidence and it seemed to explain why he ( Jack ) was correct about this "off shadow" subject and Craig wasn't ... but then , that's just my unprofessional opinion .... Not being a professional photographer ( like Jack and Craig ) I really have no way of knowing which of them is technically correct about this evidence ... I am only going by what makes more sense to me , by the evidence that has been presented.

I would question whether Jack could be considered a professional photographer, but let's not quibble about that right now. That main point is to determine - apart from Jack or Craig - what conditions / people / circumstances would allow us to confidently assume that an assessment of Jack's primary claim (that the Apollo images in question could not be real because they violate photographic physics / reality) is correct or incorrect.

So, Duane, we are in this together. What qualification / experience can we say someone must have to give a 'professional / expert' opinion? What images could be presented, under what conditions, to say that the claim is correct or incorrect? What is our standard of evidence?

How would you assure a disinterested, impartial party that one particular claim was correct?

I will probably live to regret this but here goes ..

Evan .... In answer to your question , I would say that the "disinterested party" would have to look at both sides of the argument and make up their own mind as to which evidence is correct ( according to their possible mindset perhaps ? ) .... but if they're all that "disinterested ", I doubt they would really give a rip ...

I stand by my position that this ONE study does not make or break the Apollo hoax photographic evidence .... I believe that those who support the Apollo photos as being authentic have completely ( possibly deliberately ) misinterpreted Jack's claims ... or it may be that we are possibly talking about two different things here ... I am not a professional photographer and will not pretend to know much about photography , but it's obvious to me that Jack's statment that "A PHOTOGRAPHER CAN NOT STAND NEXT TO HIS OWN SHADOW " has been taken out of context to it's original intent , and has now become a game being played at his expense .

Jack is siimply making the point that if the shadow of the photographer is as off centered in the picture ( as is the case with many of the Apollo photographs showing the astronaut's shadows ) then the images of the shadows were either FAKED , or the photos were CROPPED .... and since none of those Apollo photos show the feet of the photographer , then there is no way to know if they were either staged or cropped .

Jack's statement .... " Any shadow of the photographer MUST lead to his feet, therefore must point toward the bottom center of the UNCROPPED photo." ... is correct ... and doesn't contradict in any way what he is saying now , even though he has worded it a bit differently ... I can understand his frustration in this , as none of you seem to be willing to accept his analysis , but rather seem to be more interested in trying to discredit Jack by trashing this particular photo study .

Correct me if I'm wrong ( I'm sure you will ) but Lamson's 'rebuttal 'study doesn't show the shadow of a photographer, so I don't see how it even applies to this discussion .... As for the others , who make the same claim that Craig does , it seem to me that what you claim only applies to a camera that is NOT chest mounted , but rather hand held with the photographer shifting his body to the side and holding the camera at an angle to cause the shadow of the photograher to be off centered .... And even when performing this trick , the photographer's shadow is still not as off centered as in the Apollo photos in question .

Therefore IMO , only one conclusion can be made .... The Apollo photos showing the off centered shadows were either faked , cropped , or the astronuat hand held the camera and twisted his body in a way that his shadow was off centered in the photo ... but even after looking at Lamson's original 'rebuttal' study ( posted several months ago , where he contorted his body to get the shot ) , I don't see how the astronaut's shadows could have been as off centered as they are ( sometimes even at the far right or left of the photo ) , without the shadow image either being placed in the photo , or the photo being cropped to allow this anomaly to happen ... Neither Greer's , West's or Lamson's studies have ever shown a shadow as off centered as the shadows in Apollo photos .