Kevin M. West

The light filling in the dark side of the astronaut is reflected off the surface itself. There's nothing disproportionate about it. If you look at the high res scans of that image, you can clearly see rocks and other small details inside the shadow, it is not total blackness. The long shadows of his legs are simply because his shadow is on a slope, not flat ground, therefore it's greatly elongated.

Uhm, excuse me, I did not say the photos were underexposed. I said the area inside the shadow was underexposed. If you wanted to, you could adjust that camera to pick up the details inside the shadows, but then the rest of the photo would be overexposed. Go read up on dynamic range.

Yeah, you say that, but there isn't a single bit of eyewitness testimony from any of those millions of witnesses, only 1 person assuming that there were millions of witnesses, because he was told that it was broadcast at that time. In reality, the evidence shows that event was not in any of the broadcasts, there were no witnesses, and the video that Jack got his images from is much later in the day and shows WTC2 collapsing, not WTC6 exploding.

I said in the darkest shadows there wouldn't be enough exposure, I didn't say in all shadows. Wether there is enough light in a shadow to register on film depends on a few factors. In an flat wide open area with nothing around to reflect light except the surface itself, a shadow falling on the surface will be very black. If there is something nearby to reflect light into the shadow, like a hill, a rock, the LM, the other astronaut, etc, then there could be enough light to show something. For objects above the surface, like the dark side of the LM or house rock or even an astronaut, light will be reflected into the shadow from the surface itself. It all depends on what is there to reflect sunlight into the shadow. The NASA article you refer to doesn't say that totally black shadows are impossible. In fact it mentions an incident where the astronauts couldn't see something they were working on: But more importantly, what it doesn't discuss, is taking pictures of those shadows. The human eye adapts to darkness and can pick up faint light, but a camera with exposure settings for a sunlit scene would be very underexposed in shadow. Why don't you post some specific examples (in a new thread) so we can discuss them?

Sure wouldn't be a first or second or third or ten thousandth time......but this one stands to take down the government [as did / does Dallas], and that is why they are kicking and fighting so hard.....and for many it is just beyond belief that their own prized and beloved America could do that...well America did not do that...a small bunch of criminals did it TO America....in Dallas and in NYC at the WTC. [among other times and places]. Criminals come in all positions...from your neighborhood one to the one in the White House with his string pullers. I have never said that they couldn't do that, I believe they could. But I don't believe they did, because the evidence does not point to that. All I have ever done here is point out when people are wrong. I don't support the official story, I just look at the evidence and come to my own conclusions. If it seems that I'm attacking the CT's, that's because their theories are the most incorrect and easiest to disprove. Not airing? They were broadcasting LIVE when the supposed explosion we're currently discussing supposedly happened.

That cloud is over 500 feet tall, you can't miss it because you're looking at the towers next to it.

Jack: The pictures you're talking about in your studies do not include the astronaut's feet. No one is claiming that shadows don't lead to feet, what is being said is that perspective makes them not lead to the bottom center of the image. In fact on flat ground with a level camera and the photographer standing up straight, the shadow will always remain parallel to the edge of the frame but not centered unless the camera is pointing exactly downsun. Feet have nothing to do with it, the claims in your study are wrong, and I honestly believe you know we are right and are afraid to set the precident of admitting your error. Duane: A photograph taken with a camera set for a sunlit scene will not pick up the the faint light in the darkest shadows, those areas will be underexposed. You can't take those photos and then lighten them in photoshop to see what's in the shadow, if the info is not in the original pic you can't magically recreate it with photoshop, especially if you're using reduced size jpgs from the web and not the original scans. As for the pans, why would there be more than one shadow? If you stand in one place and turn, your shadow stays in the same place on the ground, it doesn't rotate around with you. Only the frame of the pan that included the ground downsun from the photographer would include his shadow.

No, sorry Duane, I owe no one an appology. Every news station in the area had live cameras on the towers when the second plane hit and they were all filming at 9:04, and that 'explosion' does not appear in any of the videos. I also have good friends who watched the second impact live from a nearby skyscraper, they didn't see it either. I won't take the AFP's word that cnn confirmed it without seeing both sides of the conversation, we don't know what AFP actually asked CNN, and AFP is hardly an unbiased source. of 9:04am, show me the explosion. , where's that 9:04 explosion?None of the live videos shows that cloud at 9:04. CNN WAS broadcasting live at 9:04, doesn't show that.Why the hell would anyone take Jack's word for it when he can't even show us the video he took those screen captures from? Can anyone find a longer version of this video? It seems to show the same scene from a different angle, and is most likely the same interview with Tom Clancy that Jack's images are from.

And where did you get 9:04 from? It's certainly not the time of the broadcast and there's no timestamp in the video. Or was there one before you cropped out the ticker on the bottom?

No Jack, they weren't both standing. You're pointing to the column of dust where WTC2 just fell, and calling it WTC2. Can you share the source video? It really looks like you darkened those images a lot to make the dust look more 'solid' where you claim WTC2 is.

Jack, that image is not from 9:04am. Tom Clancy was on CNN later in the day, well after both towers collapsed, and they were showing video of the collapses while he was on. Note how it says 'earlier' on the video. I haven't found the whole interview yet, but here is part of it: http://youtube.com/watch?v=bywdNU3CcOs Right at the end of this clip you can see the dust cloud in question clearly being formed by the collapse of WTC2. Can anyone find the full interview with Tom Clancy so we can see Jack's screenshot in context?

Really? If you have photos of an explosion, please share! All we've seen so far is photos that clearly show a collapse.

Of course they weren't caused by falling debris. They were caused by the fire that was burning in the rubble pile when the image was created.

Also note that the one with the debris pile that's below street level is the shortest of the buildings listed. The problem with your numbers there is that you're measuring the height of the debris pile from street level, not from the bottom of the pile. ALL of the piles started at the basement depth of the respective buildings, all but wtc6 piled up high enough for the pile to be above street level. WTC6, being only 8 stories tall, didn't have enough debris to pile up above street level.

Wrong again Duane, there were no micro-nukes at the WTC, and the 'debris hole' is because the building didn't just go up from street level, it had a mall and several levels of basement below it. Once the collapse started due to the thousands of tons of debris falling on the roof, it proceeded all the way into the basement. There was nothing special about street level that would make the collapse stop there.

There was no explosion in wtc6 and nothing was vaporized. It's quite obvious from the pictures that large amounts of debris fell on top of 6 and it partially collapsed.

If you're not interested, the answer is to stay out of the thread, not to try to change the subject of someone else's discussion. Phunk ! ... My dear friend ! ... I didn't know that someone died and made you god of the Education Forum ... I thought that freedom of speech was still alive and well and allowed on the internet at least , and that I could post comments wherever I wanted to , as long as they don't break the forum rules .. God of the education forum? Grow up. I didn't ban you, or report you, or do anything censorlike. I simply commented on your absurd behavior. You don't think there's something rude about attempting to change the subect of someone else's thread because it doesn't interest you? Go read another thread if this one is boring to you.

If you're not interested, the answer is to stay out of the thread, not to try to change the subject of someone else's discussion.

They weren't there to 'film an uninteresting gas leak', they were doing a documentary on the NYFD and following around some crews in their day to day activities.

Nonsense. Parallax does not make rover tracks disappear. Jack No, people walking around on them makes them disapear.

The pictures weren't taken from the same location Jack, the second picture was taken from at least a few feet to the left of the first one, hense the parallax effect that is clearly visible between the foreground and background. The dots are only aligned vertically because you scaled and cropped the images to get them to match.

Jack wouldn't care if you made a connection to the assassination of Ceasar as long as you agreed with him. The problem is, you didn't make a connection, you just posted crap about another conspiracy and declared them connected.

Then why don't you tell us the connection? Not 'everything the government says is lies', but an actual connection.

IMHO, If your only connection between 9/11 and kennedy is "they lied before so they must be lying now" then a long post about kennedy is irrelevant to this thread.

Yeah, but you can't just follow the line in the U, perspective will change the angle of those lines based on the distance and angle of the camera. Look at the distance between the sign behind the engine and the lightpost. Now look at the other pic, and you can see the corner of that same sign, and the distance to the light puts it directly behind the engine. If that is the location of the post, then the garbage can would be just out of frame to the left in the other picture. I don't think the engine was moved, the pic was just taken from a different angle. There are a lot more pics here: http://911review.org/brad.com/wtc_plane_debris.html The only thing that appears to have moved is the garbage can as far as I can tell.