A very peculiar Apollo series

[Dave Greer]

"Stretch and skew" is the term used for MSN paint , when altering photographic images ... In Greer's case , he claimed to have only "stretched" the image in the A15 photo in an attempt to have the anomalous shadow match the object allegedy causing it ... But in his obsession to always 'win' the point , he only drew more attention to the fact that the shadow was backwards .

I think you need to look up what "skew" actually means. In MS Paint it's akin to changing a rectangular shape to a parallelogram, in other words it's a shear transformation.

Re the shadows being backward, you keep contradicting yourself. First you say it's "obviously backward", then you say it might have been done as per Peri's video demo using mannequins and artifical lights. Well, it wasn't "obviously backward" there, as he moved the video camera so you could see more of it. So, what exactly is your position, backward shadow or forward shadow? If backwards, please explain why? Despite this point dragging on for weeks, you've supplied NO evidence other than "it looks backward to me, therefore it is".

Together , you all have the mentality of a lynch mob .... I can feel the hate coming from all of you .. and all I can say is , thank God I don't know any of you in the real world .

Duane, the only "hate" here is coming from you, as the invective in most of your posts will testify. I suspect you don't want to stick around because you seem to be incapable of understanding the explanations given to you. Just because those explanations go over your head does not mean people hate you, nor should you hate them.

[Len Colby]

"Stretch and skew" is the term used for MSN paint , when altering photographic images ... In Greer's case , he claimed to have only "stretched" the image in the A15 photo in an attempt to have the anomalous shadow match the object allegedy causing it ...

Exactly you don't know what the word means in Paint as in every English dictionary skew means to manipulate an image diagonally

But in his obsession to always 'win' the point , he only drew more attention to the fact that the shadow was backwards .

Your theory has not only been debunked but it makes no sense, why would NASA airbrush the original shadow out and then paste in a backwards one. Though doing so wouldn't be too difficult today with PhotoShop this would have been rather difficult to do with 1970's technology.

Together , you all have the mentality of a lynch mob .... I can feel the hate coming from all of you.

An obvious case of projection. Edited June 1, 2007 by Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

Am I ever going to see an apology for the incorrect accusations? I wonder...

[Guest John Gillespie]

"Requiring file numbers for Apollo photos is akin to requiring JFK researchers

to give Zapruder frame numbers in studies of the FAKED ZAPRUDER FILM."

_______________________________________________________________

Perfect. Right on, Jack. Logic, however impeccable, adheres not to the chronically implacable.

Regards,

JG

[Jack White]

"Requiring file numbers for Apollo photos is akin to requiring JFK researchers

to give Zapruder frame numbers in studies of the FAKED ZAPRUDER FILM."

_______________________________________________________________

Perfect. Right on, Jack. Logic, however impeccable, adheres not to the chronically implacable.

Regards,

JG

Thanks, John. Some are incapable of logic, making them easy targets of propagandists.

Jack

Edited June 1, 2007 by Jack White

[Kevin M. West]

Sorry you're both wrong still. Even if the zapruder film is fake (just an example, I haven't studied JFK), if you want to show evidence in one of the frames of the film you have to identify which frame it is.

[Evan Burton]

Correct. A more apt analogy might be if I turned up in the JFK forum claiming to have an image showing LHO leaning out the window, aiming a rifle at Kennedy. I show a cropped image of the window which apparently DOES show what I claimed.

I would imagine the first question everyone would ask would be 'what is the source of that image?', so they could look at the full image and determine for themselves if it does show what is claimed - especially if there were some 5000 images it might have originated from.

Face it Jack - you weren't after an answer to a simple question. You were trying to insinuate there was something wrong with them being taken, and knew that if you gave all the details it would invalidate your insinuation.

[Evan Burton]

Jack,

I've given this matter some thought because members have complained to me.

You have called people propagandists, parasites, accused them of actions which they did not take (me) and not admitted your error, called people "uninformed jerks with sawdust for brains", and accused moderators of being censors.

I cannot in all good conscious berate other members for use of inappropriate terms when you have used them constantly.

You are officially warned, and your warning level has been increased by 1 level.

You have 7 levels of warning, and no one moderator can increase your level by more than 1 per day.

I strongly suggest that you temper your replies. You may disagree with people, and you may say that they have ulterior motives for their actions, but you will do it in a reasonable fashion.

[Evan Burton]

Am I ever going to see an apology for the incorrect accusations? I wonder...

I guess not. Jack seems to demonstrate a certain reticence when it comes to admitting he has made an error.

2. Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager

than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT.

I guess that only applies to studies, and not general accusations.

[Kevin M. West]

As far as I've seen, it doesn't apply to the studies either. Once he's proven wrong he tends to stop replying to the thread and disapear for a while before starting a new thread with one of his other studies.