Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jack White and David Percy....


Craig Lamson
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hey! Well done.

Extensive work, and as you say, anyone can reproduce the results and prove for themselves that Jack is wrong.

Thanks. The best part is that all of those who have done the tests and were slighted by White and Percy can now be vindicated.

The funny part is that group also includes Jarrah White :0

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey! Well done.

Extensive work, and as you say, anyone can reproduce the results and prove for themselves that Jack is wrong.

Thanks. The best part is that all of those who have done the tests and were slighted by White and Percy can now be vindicated.

The funny part is that group also includes Jarrah White :0

Don't gloat yet. Thanks for providing photos which REFUTE YOUR THESIS

AND SUPPORT MINE. Bernice will post the images here when she has time.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey! Well done.

Extensive work, and as you say, anyone can reproduce the results and prove for themselves that Jack is wrong.

Thanks. The best part is that all of those who have done the tests and were slighted by White and Percy can now be vindicated.

The funny part is that group also includes Jarrah White :0

Don't gloat yet. Thanks for providing photos which REFUTE YOUR THESIS

AND SUPPORT MINE. Bernice will post the images here when she has time.

Jack

Great, have at it. Given your track recod of failure in this matter I'm sure your post will be interesting.

Have you ever heard of photobucket Jack? Its free, won't take any more work than you are doing now and you won't have to have someone else do your work.....

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack...

B..

No Jack you are simply trying to deflect from your failed argument.

First, if you could read you would know the camera setup I used did not have a shutter, thus was not usable in bright sunlight.

Second, you saying "that the very thing under discussion is whether the Apollo shadows were cast by artifical studio light or sunlight" is COMPLETELY FALSE!

That was never any part of your failed claim about the offset shadow. But please make add it if you wish...I have the Hasselblad images taken in sunlight sitting in the bullpin just waiting to be played.....

The discussion is whether the the shadows can exist AT ALL offset to the sides of the image. Your claim has nothing to do with the source of the light You claim the shadows cannot exsit. I prove they can. I've done so (along with many others) in daylight and with a studio light, proving you wrong each time.

Third, I have shown THAT UNDER A WELL DEFINED SITUATION, a studio light can act exactly as the sun. Please, show me the physics that prove I'm wrong. Maybe Costella can set you correct....

Time for you to admit your errors. You are beaten.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Third, I have shown THAT UNDER A WELL DEFINED SITUATION, a studio light can act exactly as the sun.

Yes, it certainly can ..... :lol:

The Apollo 12 moonset , complete with fake spotlight 'sun'.

as12-46-6765.jpg

AS12-46-6765

sixsuns.jpg

Jack ... I see you fell for Lamson's bait ... His obsession in attempting to prove you wrong about this has become kinda scary now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the normal exchange that Apollogists, Hoax Believers, and lurkers alike have come to expect. No-one will accept anything the other person says.

Now, I have tried this with Jack in the past and he refuses to state anything apart from his own beliefs... so I'll ask Duane.

Duane, I have never seen you post anything to suggest that you are a professional photographer or have extensive knowledge in the photographic field. So, can I ask, in this particular case what evidence would convince you that Craig is correct and Jack is wrong? What standard of expertise and what standard of evidence would make you say "In this particular case, Jack is wrong"?

You can't say "I will only believe such & such a person". You have to set some type of experience / qualification level, and set some type of experiment that would say to you that there is no fakery.

I'm interested to find out what that would be so that I can arrange such a demonstration to show you that jack is wrong in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the normal exchange that Apollogists, Hoax Believers, and lurkers alike have come to expect. No-one will accept anything the other person says.

Now, I have tried this with Jack in the past and he refuses to state anything apart from his own beliefs... so I'll ask Duane.

Duane, I have never seen you post anything to suggest that you are a professional photographer or have extensive knowledge in the photographic field. So, can I ask, in this particular case what evidence would convince you that Craig is correct and Jack is wrong? What standard of expertise and what standard of evidence would make you say "In this particular case, Jack is wrong"?

You can't say "I will only believe such & such a person". You have to set some type of experience / qualification level, and set some type of experiment that would say to you that there is no fakery.

I'm interested to find out what that would be so that I can arrange such a demonstration to show you that jack is wrong in this case.

I'm still wondering when Duane will post his rebuttal to Dave bag drop calculations. And of course he can't rebut this study either.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Read my reply again ... I was addressing this statement below made by Craig in his previous post ....

Third, I have shown THAT UNDER A WELL DEFINED SITUATION, a studio light can act exactly as the sun."

Sorry, but my previous reply does NOT qualify as " changing the subject " , as it was a direct reply to that statement.

Where as your reply ..

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

And here is another reply which would be considered "changing the subject" , plus goading .

I'm still wondering when Duane will post his rebuttal to Dave bag drop calculations. And of course he can't rebut this study either.
:rolleyes:

And to answer that off topic ( changing the subject ) question ... My "think tank" has been otherwise engaged and has not yet had the time to refute Greer's erroneous bag drop math figures ... I already replied to Dave that I would post our figures as soon as I had them ... He didn't seem to have any problem with that reply so why should you ?

You started this topic thread , by dragging up an old argument as bait for Jack to jump at , so you could play more of your ridiculous games again .. Like I stated before , your obsession in attempting to prove Jack wrong has become scary ....

Evan Burton @ Sep 4 2007, 10:13 AM)

Duane, I have never seen you post anything to suggest that you are a professional photographer or have extensive knowledge in the photographic field. So, can I ask, in this particular case what evidence would convince you that Craig is correct and Jack is wrong? What standard of expertise and what standard of evidence would make you say "In this particular case, Jack is wrong"?

Evan ... As you well know , I am not a professional photographer ... but then if memory serves me correctly , neither are you .

I read Lamson's rebuttal evidence to Jack's study , and from what I could see, Craig admitted that Jack was CORRECT more than he said he wasn't .... I also read Jack's rebuttal to Lamson's photo evidence and it seemed to explain why he ( Jack ) was correct about this "off shadow" subject and Craig wasn't ... but then , that's just my unprofessional opinion .... Not being a professional photographer ( like Jack and Craig ) I really have no way of knowing which of them is technically correct about this evidence ... I am only going by what makes more sense to me , by the evidence that has been presented .

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

As Bill Kaysing used to say ( I won't put it in quotes , as it's probably not verbatum ) .... It's not one piece of evidence which proved that Apollo was a hoax , it was CUMULATIVE .... So in that context , it doesn't really much matter who is correct in this particular instance .

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...