Kevin M. West

I didn't find any, I guess you're wrong. Can you find a single specific example?

How many different ways can I prove Jack wrong. Let's try video this time. This one took me about 30 seconds with a camera and tape measure, I encourage everyone to try this at home. The tape measure is a perfectly straight line running directly under the camera, just like it was the shadow of the photographer. Being a straight line, you can't accuse anyone of bending or contorting to make the shadow appear different. It's on perfectly flat terrain (a table). The camera is never moved from it's position, only turned left & right slightly. But what do we see? The line remains roughly parallel to the edge of the photo, not pointing to bottom center as Jack thinks should happen. How many ways does his claim have to be shown to be wrong before he admits it?

Duane actually taking a picture himself to test a claim? I'll believe it when I see it.

How about a specific example Duane? I haven't heard one yet that didn't have the proper delay, yet you claim that none of them do, so it should be trivial for you to find an example.

Wrong in so many ways I don't know where to begin. I'll keep it short as I've gotta go make dinner. There was delay in the responses in the apollo audio In a translunar trajectory, they spent much more time in contact with each station on the ground than they would in a low orbit. The deep space network, which was used to provide continuous coverage by placing dishes around the world, was build AFTER john glenn's flight.

Well then I guess it only happens in your imagination, because a) that looks like a picture of the sun, not a spotlight and there were no 'sets'.

What double shadow?

Good god Jack, you claim to be a photography expert? The first picture was taken during a solar eclipse, the disk of the sun is blocked and a long exposure is taken of the dim corona. The second picture does not have the disk of the sun blocked, so the sun is massively overexposed.

No Duane, no matter how many times you say it, you're still wrong. I don't believe in Apollo because I the 'powers that be' told me to, I believe it because the evidence points to it being the truth, and every single little bit if evidence against it that you guys come up with doesn't stand up to the simplest examination.

Sorry Duane, Jack was NOT right. The camera being chest level and centered does not change anything, the shadow will still be off-center and parallel to the edge of the frame unless they are aiming directly downsun. There is no cropping necessary. Jack is not right in theory, or in reality. Why don't either of you go take a picture and see for yourself? Are you afraid to find out you're wrong?

How would I realize that if they didn't fake them?

Hey Duane, you realize that the apollo program started YEARS before Nixon was elected, right?

Jack, this is just getting sad. It has been explained to you in great detail why you're wrong, let me do it yet again. The shadow of the photographer should not point to the bottom center of the image, in the real world the shadow of the photographer, assuming they are standing up straight, will be roughly parallel with the edge of the frame. Here's a very simple diagram to explain why: This is a top-down view Blue is the photographer Grey is his shadow Red is the FoV of the camera Green is where the bottom edge of the FoV intersects the ground Note that the shadow does not intersect the center of the bottom edge, it is offset. Here is what happens when you apply simple perspective from the photographer's point of view: Note that the perspective transform results in the shadow being nearly parallel to the edge of the frame, as expected, not pointing towards bottom center. Seriously, go take a picture yourself, it will take a lot less time than photoshopping one of your 'studies' together and you might actually learn something about photography.

By the way jack, there are several threads in this forum where you stopped posting as soon as your work was shown to be wrong. Any comment? For example: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8510

Can't wait to see it, I'm sure it's quality work. You know, the 'hang time' of an object depends on more than just gravity, it also depends on it's initial velocity. There is no reason the dirt should have the same initial velocity as the astronaut. The bootprint I'll have to see, I can only guess now that it's 2 overlapping prints. We'll see. No idea what you're talking about with the "light bulb", but I eagerly await the "evidence".

Ever plan to take down any of the old, debunked material on aulis?

Yes, the problem, as I've said before, is the shape of the bucket. The shadow is falling in the same direction as the rock, but the shape of the bucket (point at the top) makes it appear different than the rock (flat on top).

Duane, the only way you will be convinced is if you go try the experiment yourself. With an actual camera in the proper location, not just turning your head.

I must have missed that part in the article, could you quote that specific part again? No, we believe what the article says (well, I do, and I'm assuming others who disagree with you do), the problem is that you don't understand what you're reading. It doesn't support your position. To make an analogy you probably won't understand, it's like you heard the term 'oxygen toxicity' and decided that breathing is a hoax, because oxygen can be deadly, without taking the time to learn that the amount and exposure time are important factors (as the type, amount, and exposure time are important factors with radiation). I don't know if your ego is too big to admit that you don't know something, or you're in denial about not knowing it, or you're just messing with us, but for some reason you refuse to take the time to learn about the subject you keep cutting & pasting articles about.

A proper rebuttal? You didn't post anything to rebut! It's just a bunch of quotes that don't support your argument!

If the flag thing is your 'favorite so far' why not start a thread and tell us which pan you're talking about. Same for whatever landing footage you're talking about.

That's the advantage of a human pilot, corrections on the fly. A probe might not know if it's about to land in a boulder field, but a human can see that and alter the landing site. Good thing they had a real pilot to correct the autopilot! Nobody said a week in a cramped capsule would be comfortable. Yes, gamma ray photons are billions of times more energetic than visible light, that's basic physics. The question is, what is the flux rate? Would you rather stand in the path of a single gamma photon or a high power visible light laser? Now that's just silly.

More testing, good stuff. Oh no, an engine exploded in 1965! Good thing they had 4 more years to refine the design. Again, more testing, kinda blows away all your claims that these were untested systems. Do you even know what the problems were or what was done about them, or did you just see the word 'problems' and say 'ah-ha, proof!' Wow a part failed while being tested during a redesign. I bet they gave up right then and there and decided to fake it in a sound stage. All propellant tanks since then must be a hoax. Your point? When will you get to the technical reasons?

Thought the subtitle of the thread was technical reasons... Wow, a preliminary report about a maneuver they didn't use. Hrmm, good thing they cut off the engines before touchdown. It's almost like all the research they did was actually done for a reason. Ok, you lost me, what's your point with this one? So when do the technical reasons that Apollo was a hoax begin? You're posting evidence that they did design and testing, that's evidence FOR Apollo. That was nice of them.

No, just tough to figure out what drugs to take to have my vision distorted like yours. I have no friggin clue how you can make the claims you do seriously. If you really believe it you should have no problem illustrating it by labeling the parts of the shadow, in either image since they are the same, one just has a different vertical scale.