Jack White and David Percy....

[Duane Daman]

Duane...you and I have it far easier than the defenders of the fake photos.

We can afford to be mistaken occasionally, and sometimes are...but the

fake-defenders MUST BE CORRECT A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TIME,

and you and I only need to be right ONE TIME. If they admit even one

Apollo photo is faked...THEY LOSE! That is why they get frantic when we

get close to the truth.

Jack

I never realized that Jack ... No wonder the defenders of Apollo will never admit to any of the anomalies in the Apollo photography .

If nasa faked one then ..... Yep , makes perfect sense now why all the dishonest game playing takes place on every forum where this is discussed .

It also explains why you and David are constantly charactrer assassinated ... If all of your studies were really wrong , then arses like Lamson wouldn't be bothered with you , or be so obsessed in trying to disprove your hoax evidence ....

[Evan Burton]

Once again:

Jack - you made statements about shadows in images (must go to bottom centre) which have been proven on multiple occasions to be incorrect. Will you withdraw those comments?

[Evan Burton]

Duane...you and I have it far easier than the defenders of the fake photos.

We can afford to be mistaken occasionally, and sometimes are...but the

fake-defenders MUST BE CORRECT A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TIME,

and you and I only need to be right ONE TIME. If they admit even one

Apollo photo is faked...THEY LOSE! That is why they get frantic when we

get close to the truth.

Jack

I never realized that Jack ... No wonder the defenders of Apollo will never admit to any of the anomalies in the Apollo photography .

If nasa faked one then ..... Yep , makes perfect sense now why all the dishonest game playing takes place on every forum where this is discussed .

It also explains why you and David are constantly charactrer assassinated ... If all of your studies were really wrong , then arses like Lamson wouldn't be bothered with you , or be so obsessed in trying to disprove your hoax evidence ....

Duane,

Why do you think Jack will not admit he was wrong about the shadows?

I fully acknowledge that being wrong about this particular claim does not automatically make his other claims wrong... mere this particular claim:

Non-Apollo, non-debunker images from people who have nothing to do with myself:

Source: http://www.jonathans.me.uk/index.cgi?secti...pic=two_shadows

Source: http://www.sylviastuurman.nl/sitemap/foto/english.php

Source: http://www.art.com/asp/sp-asp/_/PD--120807...ong_Shadows.htm

[Duane Daman]

Why do you think Jack will not admit he was wrong about the shadows?

I'm sorry, but I don't have the answer to that question ... and I can't speak for Jack .

I fully acknowledge that being wrong about this particular claim does not automatically make his other claims wrong... mere this particular claim:

That would have to be the most intelligent thing ever written by someone who defends the official Apollo record .... Thank you .

[Dave Greer]

In answer to Jack's latest re-writing of his offset shadow claim:-

[Jack White]

Why do you think Jack will not admit he was wrong about the shadows?

I'm sorry, but I don't have the answer to that question ... and I can't speak for Jack .

I fully acknowledge that being wrong about this particular claim does not automatically make his other claims wrong... mere this particular claim:

That would have to be the most intelligent thing ever written by someone who defends the official Apollo record .... Thank you .

I stand by my statements. None of the proffered photos show the feet of the photographer.

Some appear to be cropped. Some actually show the shadow GOING TOWARD THE CENTER

OF THE PICTURE as I have said. Show me some pix with the FEET of the photographer. Till

then, keep wasting your time and misrepresenting my position.

Jack

[Dave Greer]

I stand by my statements. None of the proffered photos show the feet of the photographer.

Some appear to be cropped. Some actually show the shadow GOING TOWARD THE CENTER

OF THE PICTURE as I have said. Show me some pix with the FEET of the photographer. Till

then, keep wasting your time and misrepresenting my position.

Jack

Jack

Show an Apollo photo with the astronauts feet in the photo. This is a red herring you've used before. NONE of the Apollo photos you refer to show the astronauts feet - so why should sny rebuttals?

My photo shows the angle of the shadow pointing away from the centre, just like the Apollo photos you say are faked. My photo isn't cropped. Anyone with a simple camera can take a photo proving your claim to be wrong, and I urge them to do so if they are not convinced.

[Craig Lamson]

Why do you think Jack will not admit he was wrong about the shadows?

I'm sorry, but I don't have the answer to that question ... and I can't speak for Jack .

I fully acknowledge that being wrong about this particular claim does not automatically make his other claims wrong... mere this particular claim:

That would have to be the most intelligent thing ever written by someone who defends the official Apollo record .... Thank you .

I stand by my statements. None of the proffered photos show the feet of the photographer.

Some appear to be cropped. Some actually show the shadow GOING TOWARD THE CENTER

OF THE PICTURE as I have said. Show me some pix with the FEET of the photographer. Till

then, keep wasting your time and misrepresenting my position.

Jack

Well there mr. 50 years of professional photography experience, please describe the situation that would show the photographers feet and also show a normal scene as depicted in the Apollo photographs. And while you are at it, please give us detailed reasons, that include empirical photographic examples taken by you to prove your statements, that can debunk this:

http://www.infocusinc.net/apollo.htm

No one is misrepresenting your position, well other than you.

White writes:

Correct: when light is behind photographer, his shadow MUST go to the bottom center where his feet are.

And then he writes again:

Any shadow of the photographer must lead to his feet, therefore must lead TOWARDS the bottom center of the uncropped photo

So which is it WHite? Which statement are you standing by? Why have you misrepresented your own position?

AND WHY DO THE IMAGES IN THE STUDY LINKED ABOVE PROVE BOTH STATEMENTS WRONG?

Please note that complete instruction are included inthe study linked above that will allow you to replicate the experiments and the photographs. Please include your photographs that document your recreation attempts for the above study.

I'm actually glad your are foolish enough to stand by your statements. They prove perfectly your intellectual dishonesty.

[Evan Burton]

Why do you think Jack will not admit he was wrong about the shadows?

I'm sorry, but I don't have the answer to that question ... and I can't speak for Jack .

I fully acknowledge that being wrong about this particular claim does not automatically make his other claims wrong... mere this particular claim:

That would have to be the most intelligent thing ever written by someone who defends the official Apollo record .... Thank you .

I stand by my statements. None of the proffered photos show the feet of the photographer.

Some appear to be cropped. Some actually show the shadow GOING TOWARD THE CENTER

OF THE PICTURE as I have said. Show me some pix with the FEET of the photographer. Till

then, keep wasting your time and misrepresenting my position.

Jack

I have used your quotes exactly as they have appeared, either in your posts or in your studies.

You have said:

"Axis of shadow must point towards bottom center"

(Source: http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_6.html)

and

"...if the shadow DOES NOT POINT TOWARD the center of the photo it cannot be an uncropped original photo..."

(Source: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t&p=117329)

This is just so people can confirm for themselves that I have not distorted or misquoted you in any way.

I have on older threads posted images which completely disprove your statements.

Craig has posted images which completely disprove your statements.

Dave has posted images which completely disprove your statements.

I have posted images, taken by people completely unassociated with this forum, debunking, Apollo, NASA, any government agency, etc, which completely disprove your statements.

You have been given several opportunities to admit that you had made an error:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=119343

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=119353

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=119828

Yet despite all this, you still claim that you are right. This from the person who claims:

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.

The previous examples prove you are dishonest regarding the boast above, and you deliberately make claims which you know to be untrue.

I will now reinstate your quote to my signature line, as you have proven by your own actions that you do not live up to your own undertakings.

"Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT." - Jack White

Little White Lies

[Duane Daman]

Evan ... You are entitled to your own opinion about this subject and to reply to Jack with any form of rebuttal you feel necessary to disprove this study ... but as a moderator of this forum , it is my opinion that adding Jack's statement of " Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT." - Jack White

and then adding " Little White Lies " below his statement , is equivalent to calling Jack a xxxx ... A word which you yourself banned from this forum .

So instead of being a hypocrite by breaking your own rules , why not attempt to be more of an unbiased , mature , fair moderator and not make this a personal vendetta against Jack ... I'm sure you will earn more respect that way.

[Jack White]

Evan ... You are entitled to your own opinion about this subject and to reply to Jack with any form of rebuttal you feel necessary to disprove this study ... but as a moderator of this forum , it is my opinion that adding Jack's statement of " Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT." - Jack White

and then adding " Little White Lies " below his statement , is equivalent to calling Jack a xxxx ... A word which you yourself banned from this forum .

So instead of being a hypocrite by breaking your own rules , why not attempt to be more of an unbiased , mature , fair moderator and not make this a personal vendetta against Jack ... I'm sure you will earn more respect that way.

Duane...a favorite tactic of provocateurs:

1. Misquote your opponent, setting up a "strawman"

2. Attack the strawman, hoping observers will believe it is true.

Here, they misquote my position, and then attack the misquote.

Let me once again clearly state my position, which they have

not addressed as yet:

1. The shadow of the backlighted photographer MUST ORIGINATE

AT HIS FEET.

2. Using a chest mounted camera and facing forward, the camera

necessarily is directly ABOVE THE FEET and pointing forward.

3. THEREFORE, the line of sight of the camera, being directly

above the feet MUST show the photographer's shadow pointing

TOWARD the BOTTOM CENTER of the image, where the feet

would be if they were in the photo. Since the feet are not in

the image, the operative word is TOWARD the feet, which

necessarily at bottom center (if the photo is extended).

The provocateurs have provided several bogus attempts to

prove me wrong. Laughably, some of their images prove me

correct. The shadows in their photos show a person standing

sideways with the camera at shoulder level. No photo yet

shows the feet of the photographer. No assurance is provided

that the images are uncropped. All attempts posted so far

to "prove me wrong" are bogus. When/if they post an image

with the shadow going to the feet, under similar parameters

of the Apollo photos, they may have something.

Jack

[Kevin M. West]

And again Jack shows he has no understanding of perspective.

A challenge for Jack (or Duane). Imagine the following pattern is drawn on flat, level ground, and a photographer stands at the vertex and takes a picture, holding the camera level and aimed in the direction of the center line.

Sketch what the photograph would look like.

[Evan Burton]

Duane...a favorite tactic of provocateurs:

1. Misquote your opponent, setting up a "strawman"

2. Attack the strawman, hoping observers will believe it is true.

Here, they misquote my position, and then attack the misquote.

Let me once again clearly state my position, which they have

not addressed as yet:

1. The shadow of the backlighted photographer MUST ORIGINATE

AT HIS FEET.

2. Using a chest mounted camera and facing forward, the camera

necessarily is directly ABOVE THE FEET and pointing forward.

3. THEREFORE, the line of sight of the camera, being directly

above the feet MUST show the photographer's shadow pointing

TOWARD the BOTTOM CENTER of the image, where the feet

would be if they were in the photo. Since the feet are not in

the image, the operative word is TOWARD the feet, which

necessarily at bottom center (if the photo is extended).

The provocateurs have provided several bogus attempts to

prove me wrong. Laughably, some of their images prove me

correct. The shadows in their photos show a person standing

sideways with the camera at shoulder level. No photo yet

shows the feet of the photographer. No assurance is provided

that the images are uncropped. All attempts posted so far

to "prove me wrong" are bogus. When/if they post an image

with the shadow going to the feet, under similar parameters

of the Apollo photos, they may have something.

Jack

I did NOT misquote you. I have used your exact words as stated by you on either your "studies" from the Aulis website or your posts here. I gave links to the sources of the quotes, so people could independently check that I was not misquoting you.

Now, let's examine your conditions:

1. The shadow of the backlighted photographer MUST ORIGINATE

AT HIS FEET.

2. Using a chest mounted camera and facing forward, the camera

necessarily is directly ABOVE THE FEET and pointing forward.

Taken this morning by myself:

The image was taken with a Fuji Finepix S5000 digital camera. I have added the annotations, and reduced it to 25% of the original size (constraining the original proportions). It has not been cropped in any way.

It meets your conditions, and proves that you are wrong.

[Evan Burton]

Original image from above, with no alterations at all. Original size, no annotations.

[Duane Daman]

Jack ... Maybe you shouldn't piss off Evan anymore ... He looks like a pretty big guy ... Especially those thigh muscles !!

I bet his shadow could NEVER make one like Conrad's match stick legs did in that Apollo 12 piccy ....