Kevin M. West

How do you debunk a list of people?

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 .

They're not meant to be tricky. That is exactly what I meant, raising the camera 1ft or so will not change the effect that Jack's study claims, that shadows must point to the bottom center.

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 .

My only "game" here is trying to get you to think about what Jack is saying so you'll realize he is wrong. And note that I didn't say he might be wrong. He IS wrong in this case. I know this for a fact, as much as I know that 2+2=4, and I'm asking these questions to try to figure out what misconcption you have that is stopping you from seeing the truth.

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.

That's exactly what you should be doing! Jack said something incredibly easy to test is impossible, so why not test!

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!

And as a followup, does the height of the person taking the picture matter?

Can you explain what difference it makes if the camera is at chest level instead of eye level?

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.

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

Projecting would be you attributing your own qualities to others.

Strawman arguments, logical fallicies, etc. Those are legitimate complaints against poor debating tactics. Rather than just assume people who say those things are attacking you, you should go look up what they mean and see why they are saying those things.

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.

I'm sure this is exactly what Len expected. So far, no one has posted an example of him being uncivil.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

I stand by my position that this ONE study does not make or break the Apollo hoax photographic evidence

I agree, but that's no reason to ignore this study. If it's wrong, Jack should admit it and stop using it as evidence.

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

But it's not correct, it's a non sequitur. The shadow must lead to his feet, but that does NOT mean it has to point to the bottom center of the photo unless his feet are at the bottom center of the photo. Do you own a camera or know someone who will let you borrow one? You can confirm this in a few seconds.

Correct 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

It shows the shadow of the stand that's holding the camera. For the purposes of this experiment, there is no difference between the stand and a photographer standing straight up, the axis of their shadows will lie along the same line on the ground. It's the same reason I used a tape measure in one experiment and a shadow of a fence in another, you can't accuse the photographer of bending over to manipulate the shadow.

.... 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 .

The effect does not depend on the camera being chest mounted, only that it's roughly above the feet of the photographer. At eye level, chest level, or crotch level, it will happen just the same. There have been numerous examples shown to you and Jack, but not a single example of a picture taken by either of you. Why do you still refuse to take 1 minute out of your day to test your theory?

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 .

Here's a pic I took back in Feb. Notice the shadow of the fence along the right edge of the image. It's a straight shadow running directly underneath the camera, yet it does not go to the bottom center of the frame. That's about as off center as it can get.

Duane or Jack or anyone else, go take a couple pictures and see for yourself. It's really that simple.

Shall I quote your study?

Any shadow of the photographer MUST lead to his feet, therefore must point towards the bottom center of the uncropped photo

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/shadowdebunkwork.jpg

3. He is wrong and knows it. Can't deny it's a posibility.

That picture proves him wrong once again. Notice how the blue line doesn't go to the bottom center of the photo, it goes way below the bottom center. Seems obvious and I feel silly pointing it out, but your last post seems to indicate that you can't see it.

But regardless of who is correct or not , this ONE study does NOT prove or disprove whether the Apollo photography was faked or not ..

Indeed, so why is Jack so afraid to admit he's wrong about this one study?

Nice attempt at changing the subject Duane, which of your 25 rules was that?

Back to the matter at hand, I made a short video of the effect a few months ago. The tape measure is analogous to the shadow, a straight line extending out from the feet of the photographer. When the camera is turned (but kept over the tape) the line stays roughly parallel to the edge of the frame, it does not point to bottom center.

Anyone can try this themselves. Why don't you give it a try Bernice?

That's it?

Duane, Len rightfully called you out for retroactively declaring that you meant something else, correctly pointed out the flaws in your argument, and asked for more evidence. Disagreeing with you and asking you to back up your claims with evidence is not 'inflamitory' or 'provocative'.

Peter, again, telling me to go read his entire history on this forum is not evidence, it's dismissal. If he's so bad, you should have no problem coming up with a few specific examples. As you're the one currently accusing him, that's your job, not mine. And no, those links are not remotely related to the issue at hand.

About 90% of you posts [iMO] are inflaminatory and provocations mixed wth an over-inflated ego.

You keep saying that, but I'm not seeing it, why don't you back up that claim with some examples?

Stop hiding underwater and research his posts on the site for yourself. Or read this by others who catch on more quickly.....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=116476

I read that entire thread. What it sounds like to me is that you guys can't back up all this crap about Len. Saying 'go read his posts' is the equivilent of saying "I'm right and I don't have to show any evidence because it's so obvious". It doesn't work that way, back up your claims or stop making them.

Speaking of goading, Duane, did you notice how Peter insinuated that I'm slow and don't catch on quickly? But it's ok if he does it, right?

Now why doesn't it surprise me that you are pretending to be incapable of understang a little tactic known as GOADING ?!?.... Len is intelligent enough not to use specific words that would be considered insults , but rather resorts to number 18 of the '25 Rules of Disinformation' , in his need to attempt to debunk any forum member who doesn't ascribe to his official government version belief system ....You also use this particular tactic .

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents --- If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

Why does it not suprise me that you'd once again respond to a question not directed at you just so you can spout some nonsense about your '25 rules'?

If he's goading you, that's something that you can quote and show examples of. It's not some ethereal concept that only the supposed victim can observe, it's plain text right here in front of everyone. Stop with the excuses, and show some examples if you're going to accuse someone of something.

About 90% of you posts [iMO] are inflaminatory and provocations mixed wth an over-inflated ego.

You keep saying that, but I'm not seeing it, why don't you back up that claim with some examples?

Hell of an ego you've got there Duane, thinking that my posts have anything at all to do with you. Here's a hint... I was replying to someone else, not you.

Was I wrong? Or is Daniel's intuition 100% infallible and he shouldn't even consider the posibility that he is incorrect?

Steve, pursuant to the issue of potential agents of provocation in research forums, and to the potential mental health issues alluded to previously....

the thing I keep trying to deal with in various encounters is when I read something that seems odd or ridiculous to me, particularly coming from someone who garners respect, I only seem to be able to come to two conclusion: either they're just really, really stupid, or they're doing it on purpose

You're missing a third option, that you were wrong about it being odd or rediculous. And I don't mean it as an ad-hom or anything else, but if you honestly think the only 2 posibilities when you disagree with someone is that they are wrong or they are lying, you've must have godlike knowledge and infalibility.

????????? Who is Hutchinson?

He's the guy Peter was talking about in the post immediately before mine, before he edited it and removed all mention of the 'hutchinson effect'. I guess from now on I'll use the quote feature.

I disagree, hutchinson is a joke. Have you watched his videos?