Craig Lamson Posted September 4, 2007 Author Share Posted September 4, 2007 But regardless of who is correct or not , this ONE study does NOT prove or disprove whether the Apollo photography was faked or not .. Indeed, so why is Jack so afraid to admit he's wrong about this one study? Percy had this to say on his website concerning White's latest offset shaodw study (the one I linked in my original article) "Editor's Note: This concise, well-presented conclusion must put into serious doubt the authenticity of these Apollo photographs. And then by implication, the authenticity of the entire Apollo photographic record – no doubt fulfilling the intentions of those whistle-blowers involved. " What has been put in serious doubt is the quality of the "information" being posted by White and Percy. To make it easy to understand, empircal photographic evidence has shown that Whites objections, to all the test photos showing the offset shadow, false. The test photos prove his theory, that the shadows are impossible, to be false. It has also been shown with emipircal photographic evidence that White's statement that, ALL shadoww of the photographer when backlit MUST lead to the BOTTOM CENTER of the phtoograph, is complety false. White's THEORY IF FALSE. To prove this ANYONE can take ANY camera (also proven with empirical photographic evidence) and take their own photographs that also pove WHite's thery yo be false. This is very cut and dried. Its simply amazing that two people who call themself's as experts in the subject of photography could be so wrong about something so simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 But regardless of who is correct or not , this ONE study does NOT prove or disprove whether the Apollo photography was faked or not .. Indeed, so why is Jack so afraid to admit he's wrong about this one study? ... You're kidding , right ? ... I don't believe that Jack is "afraid" of anythng ... If he was , he wouldn't have taken on NASA by exposing their faked Apollo photography . I probably shouldn't be answering for Jack , but I would assume that he won't "admit he's wrong" about this for the simple reason that either ... 1. He isn't wrong . 2. He doesn't believe that he's wrong . And looking at his evidence again , it doesn't look to me like he's wrong either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 3. He is wrong and knows it. Can't deny it's a posibility. That picture proves him wrong once again. Notice how the blue line doesn't go to the bottom center of the photo, it goes way below the bottom center. Seems obvious and I feel silly pointing it out, but your last post seems to indicate that you can't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 That and there were other photos posted in post number 8 by Craig Lamson that the shadows point away from the center. But Duane just needed to prove he hadn't read the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 3. He is wrong and knows it. Can't deny it's a posibility.That picture proves him wrong once again. Notice how the blue line doesn't go to the bottom center of the photo, it goes way below the bottom center. Seems obvious and I feel silly pointing it out, but your last post seems to indicate that you can't see it. Quit misquoting me. I said the shadow MUST GO TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S FEET. The FEET are not in the photo...but the shadows POINT TO WHERE THE FEET WOULD BE HAD LAMSON INCLUDED THE FEET IN THE PHOTO. Deliberate misquoting of my statements suck. My statements have always been THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S LENS IF THE CAMERA IS ON HIS CHEST MUST BE DIRECTLY ABOVE HIS FEET, not the center of the photo. It is pure physics that if his body casts a shadow, the shadow MUST originate at his feet! Misstating my position deliberately is vile. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 5, 2007 Author Share Posted September 5, 2007 (edited) 3. He is wrong and knows it. Can't deny it's a posibility.That picture proves him wrong once again. Notice how the blue line doesn't go to the bottom center of the photo, it goes way below the bottom center. Seems obvious and I feel silly pointing it out, but your last post seems to indicate that you can't see it. Quit misquoting me. I said the shadow MUST GO TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S FEET. The FEET are not in the photo...but the shadows POINT TO WHERE THE FEET WOULD BE HAD LAMSON INCLUDED THE FEET IN THE PHOTO. Deliberate misquoting of my statements suck. My statements have always been THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S LENS IF THE CAMERA IS ON HIS CHEST MUST BE DIRECTLY ABOVE HIS FEET, not the center of the photo. It is pure physics that if his body casts a shadow, the shadow MUST originate at his feet! Misstating my position deliberately is vile. Jack Jacks White's own words as quoted directly from his latest Aulis study on the suject "Any shadow of the photographer MUST lead to his feet, therefore must point toward the bottom center of the UNCROPPED photo." You owe Kevin an apology. And to prove your statement and your entire theory false: Edited September 5, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Shall I quote your study? Any shadow of the photographer MUST lead to his feet, therefore must point towards the bottom center of the uncropped photo http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/shadowdebunkwork.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Anyone can try this themselves. Why don't you give it a try Bernice? I believe that Bernice is only assisting Jack to upload images, etc, and we should not assume that Bernice agrees with or endorses Jack's claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 (edited) Evan ... As you well know , I am not a professional photographer ... but then if memory serves me correctly , neither are you . Absolutely correct. At best I am an amateur. My point was, though, that neither of us can give a definitive or professional opinion as to either parties work. 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. I would question whether Jack could be considered a professional photographer, but let's not quibble about that right now. That main point is to determine - apart from Jack or Craig - what conditions / people / circumstances would allow us to confidently assume that an assessment of Jack's primary claim (that the Apollo images in question could not be real because they violate photographic physics / reality) is correct or incorrect. So, Duane, we are in this together. What qualification / experience can we say someone must have to give a 'professional / expert' opinion? What images could be presented, under what conditions, to say that the claim is correct or incorrect? What is our standard of evidence? How would you assure a disinterested, impartial party that one particular claim was correct? Edited September 5, 2007 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 (edited) Evan ... As you well know , I am not a professional photographer ... but then if memory serves me correctly , neither are you . Absolutely correct. At best I am an amateur. My point was, though, that neither of us can give a definitive or professional opinion as to either parties work. 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. I would question whether Jack could be considered a professional photographer, but let's not quibble about that right now. That main point is to determine - apart from Jack or Craig - what conditions / people / circumstances would allow us to confidently assume that an assessment of Jack's primary claim (that the Apollo images in question could not be real because they violate photographic physics / reality) is correct or incorrect. So, Duane, we are in this together. What qualification / experience can we say someone must have to give a 'professional / expert' opinion? What images could be presented, under what conditions, to say that the claim is correct or incorrect? What is our standard of evidence? How would you assure a disinterested, impartial party that one particular claim was correct? I will probably live to regret this but here goes .. Evan .... In answer to your question , I would say that the "disinterested party" would have to look at both sides of the argument and make up their own mind as to which evidence is correct ( according to their possible mindset perhaps ? ) .... but if they're all that "disinterested ", I doubt they would really give a rip ... I stand by my position that this ONE study does not make or break the Apollo hoax photographic evidence .... I believe that those who support the Apollo photos as being authentic have completely ( possibly deliberately ) misinterpreted Jack's claims ... or it may be that we are possibly talking about two different things here ... I am not a professional photographer and will not pretend to know much about photography , but it's obvious to me that Jack's statment that "A PHOTOGRAPHER CAN NOT STAND NEXT TO HIS OWN SHADOW " has been taken out of context to it's original intent , and has now become a game being played at his expense . Jack is siimply making the point that if the shadow of the photographer is as off centered in the picture ( as is the case with many of the Apollo photographs showing the astronaut's shadows ) then the images of the shadows were either FAKED , or the photos were CROPPED .... and since none of those Apollo photos show the feet of the photographer , then there is no way to know if they were either staged or cropped . Jack's statement .... " Any shadow of the photographer MUST lead to his feet, therefore must point toward the bottom center of the UNCROPPED photo." ... is correct ... and doesn't contradict in any way what he is saying now , even though he has worded it a bit differently ... I can understand his frustration in this , as none of you seem to be willing to accept his analysis , but rather seem to be more interested in trying to discredit Jack by trashing this particular photo study . Correct me if I'm wrong ( I'm sure you will ) but Lamson's 'rebuttal 'study doesn't show the shadow of a photographer, so I don't see how it even applies to this discussion .... As for the others , who make the same claim that Craig does , it seem to me that what you claim only applies to a camera that is NOT chest mounted , but rather hand held with the photographer shifting his body to the side and holding the camera at an angle to cause the shadow of the photograher to be off centered .... And even when performing this trick , the photographer's shadow is still not as off centered as in the Apollo photos in question . Therefore IMO , only one conclusion can be made .... The Apollo photos showing the off centered shadows were either faked , cropped , or the astronuat hand held the camera and twisted his body in a way that his shadow was off centered in the photo ... but even after looking at Lamson's original 'rebuttal' study ( posted several months ago , where he contorted his body to get the shot ) , I don't see how the astronaut's shadows could have been as off centered as they are ( sometimes even at the far right or left of the photo ) , without the shadow image either being placed in the photo , or the photo being cropped to allow this anomaly to happen ... Neither Greer's , West's or Lamson's studies have ever shown a shadow as off centered as the shadows in Apollo photos . Edited September 5, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 I stand by my position that this ONE study does not make or break the Apollo hoax photographic evidence I agree, but that's no reason to ignore this study. If it's wrong, Jack should admit it and stop using it as evidence. Jack is siimply making the point that if the shadow of the photographer is as off centered in the picture ( as is the case with many of the Apollo photographs showing the astronaut's shadows ) then the images of the shadows were either FAKED , or the photos were CROPPED .... and since none of those Apollo photos show the feet of the photographer , then there is no way to know if they were either staged or cropped .Jack's statement .... " Any shadow of the photographer MUST lead to his feet, therefore must point toward the bottom center of the UNCROPPED photo." ... is correct But it's not correct, it's a non sequitur. The shadow must lead to his feet, but that does NOT mean it has to point to the bottom center of the photo unless his feet are at the bottom center of the photo. Do you own a camera or know someone who will let you borrow one? You can confirm this in a few seconds. Correct if I'm wrong ( I'm sure you will ) but Lamson's 'rebuttal 'study doesn't show the shadow of a photographer, so I don't see how it even applies to this discussion It shows the shadow of the stand that's holding the camera. For the purposes of this experiment, there is no difference between the stand and a photographer standing straight up, the axis of their shadows will lie along the same line on the ground. It's the same reason I used a tape measure in one experiment and a shadow of a fence in another, you can't accuse the photographer of bending over to manipulate the shadow. .... As for the others , who make the same claim that Craig does , it seem to me that what you claim only applies to a camera that is NOT chest mounted , but rather hand held with the photographer shifting his body to the side and holding the camera at an angle to cause the shadow of the photograher to be off centered .... And even when performing this trick , the photographer's shadow is still not as off centered as in the Apollo photos in question . The effect does not depend on the camera being chest mounted, only that it's roughly above the feet of the photographer. At eye level, chest level, or crotch level, it will happen just the same. There have been numerous examples shown to you and Jack, but not a single example of a picture taken by either of you. Why do you still refuse to take 1 minute out of your day to test your theory? Therefore IMO , only one conclusion can be made .... The Apollo photos showing the off centered shadows were either faked , cropped , or the astronuat hand held the camera and twisted his body in a way that his shadow was off centered in the photo ... but even after looking at Lamson's original 'rebuttal' study ( posted several months ago , where he contorted his body to get the shot ) , I don't see how the astronaut's shadows could have been as off centered as they are ( sometimes even at the far right or left of the photo ) , without the shadow image either being placed in the photo , or the photo being cropped to allow this anomaly to happen ... Neither Greer's , West's or Lamson's studies have ever shown a shadow as off centered as the shadows in Apollo photos . Here's a pic I took back in Feb. Notice the shadow of the fence along the right edge of the image. It's a straight shadow running directly underneath the camera, yet it does not go to the bottom center of the frame. That's about as off center as it can get. Duane or Jack or anyone else, go take a couple pictures and see for yourself. It's really that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 (edited) Kevin .... In this situation , I don't believe the picture of the fence is appropriate to the discussion of astronaut's shadows . Since you seem to be so determined to prove Jack's study wrong , how about you take a similiar photo as the one above , showing YOUR shadow instead of a fence post ? ... Or will you perhaps also have to turn into a contortionist to take that kind of picture ? Oh , and then take a picture of your shadow , also showing your feet standing to the side of the picture , and let's see what position your shadow is in then . Are you also a professional photographer ? ... Or perhaps just a "professional" debunker of Apollo hoax evidence ? Edited September 5, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Kevin .... In this situation , I don't believe the picture of the fence is appropriate to the discussion of astronaut's shadows . Then you don't understand the geometry of the situation at all. Since you seem to be so determined to prove Jack's study wrong , how about you take a similar photo as the one above , showing YOUR shadow instead of a fence post ? ... Or will you perhaps also have to turn into a contortionist to take that kind of picture ? Will you accept artificial light, or complain that it's not the same as sunlight? Where I live, when the sun is close to the horizon, it's obstructed by hills and buildings. But I will be at the shore on saturday at sunrise, I'll bring my camera then. Oh , and then take a picture of your shadow , also showing your feet standing to the side of the picture , and let's see what position your shadow is in then . I don't understand the point of that, which of the apollo photos in question show the photographer's feet, and why would they be to the side? Are you also a professional photographer ? ... Or perhaps just a "professional" debunker of Apollo hoax evidence ? Neither, both are just a hobby for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 [Will you accept artificial light, or complain that it's not the same as sunlight? Where I live, when the sun is close to the horizon, it's obstructed by hills and buildings. But I will be at the shore on saturday at sunrise, I'll bring my camera then. Yes , considering the Apollo photographs in question were taken with a very BIG BRIGHT ARTIFICIAL LIGHT , I will be happy to accept that as your light source . But how will I know if your pictures are cropped or not ? ... Not that I believe you would cheat or anything like that . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now