Kevin M. West

Can you please illustrate where you think his stomach (and arms, legs, head, etc) are in the shadow?

Yep, you can't back up your argument, so you resort to name calling. Typical Duane.

Duane, what's the point of you once again cutting and pasting the same arguments that have been repeatedly shown wrong?

It's called an analogy, guess it was over your head. Yes, I absolutely believe that, because the 'deadly' effects take a long time to accumulate. That is what you refuse to believe for some reason, even though you can't do the math, don't know the science, and can only cut & paste things out of context. No, can't have them believing your foolishness, I prefer the truth.

Of course you don't understand, why should I have expected otherwise. The point is exposure time. Just as 5 hours in the sun is more dangerous than 5 minutes, the future moon and mars missions will be months long as opposed to apollo's couple days. Just because the article you cut & pasted from says it's dangerous for future long term missions does not mean that the exposure was dangerous for the short duration of the apollo missions.

Duane, no one here is 'tap dancing' but you. Dave clearly stated from the start that he would not make the email public until he got permission from the author. And guess what, that's exactly what he did. You are the one who is playing games, making acusations you knew were false. For the 1000th time, the shadow wasn't stretched to make it match the object, it was stretched to correct for perspective so you could see what a top-down view of the shadow would look like. It wasn't distorted in any way other than scaling in one dimension, as was stated in the original post. There was absolutely no deception involved other than your false claims that it was skewed, bent, etc.

I recently got a sun burn from spending a couple hours in the sun. By your logic Duane (what little there is), is it unsafe for me to go outside for a couple minutes? Why?

Jarrah is a fool. The shape of the object has everything to do with it, the rock had a flat top, his tilted bucket does not. The video is a great example of him 'standing next to his own shadow' though. Any comments Jack?

If he doesn't want to make the email public without the author's permission, that's his right and it's not evidence of anything other than him having morals. Trying to wear him down until he gives up his morals just makes you look like a jerk.

Yes but an inquiry about what? Wether or not it was an inside job, or how and why we failed to defend ourselves, or wether or not there was any foreknowledge specific enough that we should have known it was coming? There are many things that deserve inquiry that have nothing to do with it being an inside job.

Is there a moderator here with photoshop or ms paint or anything who can test this and tell Duane since he's incapable or unwilling to do it himself? I'm really getting sick of him repeating the same lies over and over.

And as I said last time, add the internet to the list of things that you don't understand. Your web browser doesn't send anything to the forum as you're typing, nothing is sent until you hit submit. No one other than you can see your post while you're typing it. So whatever the reason was for you getting banned, it certainly wasn't because you were getting too close to some truth about forum moderators.

Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't get your point.

Do you have ANY idea how perspective applies to photography and why it would make the shadows converge?

Duane, You make yourself look like the bad guy when you continue to lie about the photo being skewed. Again, this is an open invitation to any of the lurkers in this thread to do what Duane refuses to do and test it yourself. Simply scale the image vertically, no skew, and you can recreate what Dave did.

Kathy ... I never said we don't know what deep space looks like or that the Hubble hasn't photographed deep space ... Unmanned missions can and have traveled through and beyond the Van Allen radiation belts ... It's the MANNED missions which haven't gone a half a million miles out into deep space to land on the radioactive lunar surface with 40 year old technology. We didn't go with 40 year old technology, we went with state of the art technology (at the time). Tell me Duane, what type of radiation comes from the lunar surface, at what flux rate and what energy levels? Surely if you're so certain it's deadly you know this. Same question as before, what type, what flux, what energy level? What would be required to protect from it? Not a single one of their studies stands up to scrutiny, and you know this. You haven't shown any understanding of the claims you cut & paste into this forum, so that explains why you don't see how they're wrong.

The bottom line is this... He didn't skew it at all, and only stretched it to make it easier to see, not to 'match it up'. It matches up just fine in the original, which you can't see for some reason, so he gave you a better view.

We refuse to admit it because it is wrong, plain and simple. I don't know how to be any more clear on this. You are wrong Duane. You are the one playing games here, no matter how obvious it is that your conspiracy claim is wrong, you never give it up. That, in my book, is being deliberately dishonest. At this point I'd like to ask any lurkers reading the thread if they agree with this assessment: A) Rock Leg C) Arm D) Head E) Backpack Anyone think I'm wrong (besides Duane)?

Duane, take the original image, and scale it vertically 400%. You will get the same results, there is no skew and no alteration other than a vertical scaling to make the shadow easier to see. This was explained to you very clearly in the other thread and you can replicate the experiment yourself, please try.

And his claim is wrong, my images are not cropped. Duane, do you own a camera? Go try it for yourself before you accept Jack's word as truth.

Please note that I only do it in response to him saying the same about me (again). And there is the problem. Jack will gladly 'defend' his studies until he is conclusively shown to be wrong, at which point he will stop responding and let the thread drift away. This thread and the other I bumped up are perfect examples. Especially the shadow thread, it was explained in great detail not only why he was wrong, but also how anyone with a camera can test it. He's a photographer, it would take him a few seconds to test and confirm his own study, and he has read all of this, yet he doesn't comment further and the 'study' is still on aulis.He either knows he's wrong, and is therefore dishonest, or he doesn't understand the basics of photography and is unwilling to take a few seconds to test the claim for some reason. Well, in my opinion, he's been given ample time to correct himself and yet his false claims are still up there misleading people on aulis where we can't argue our side. And I'm not talking about things that are opinion, or could change with more evidence. I'm talking about things that can and have been proven, like this thread.

My main problem with Jack is that even though he's been very thoroughly proven wrong in some cases, such as the 'standing next to your shadow' pictures, he hasn't taken down the studies in question from aulis.com. He calls us disinformationists while he leaves things that he knows are false online to mislead others.

Games? Nobody here is playing games, Duane, and Jack doesn't need you to defend him.

There is nothing for hubble to see in the belts, they are invisible.

Kathy, I suggest you read some of the other threads here on the subject and see just why Duane is wrong on all counts. We've covered all of this before, he just refuses to acknowledge it.