Evan Burton Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 or these? Source: http://freelargephotos.com/?subject=South%...merican%20River Source: http://www.sylviastuurman.nl/sitemap/foto/english.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Or these? Source: http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/North_Ame...photo351190.htm Source: http://30gms.com/tags/C51/P20/ Source: http://www.danheller.com/yosemite-people.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Or these? Source: http://www.watching-grass-grow.com/picture...house/wildlife/ Source: http://www.art.com/asp/sp-asp/_/PD--120807...ong_Shadows.htm Please note that none of the images come from a NASA website, a debunking website, or for that matter a site that has anything to do with Apollo or space travel at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 7, 2007 Author Share Posted September 7, 2007 (edited) Some quick comments:- Duane's comment about "You are also being dishonest in what you claim my post comments were to you" (post #43) might be getting close to the line, but IMO he doesn't cross it. - Duane's remark about "BTW , your studio looks large enough to have faked some of the Apollo photographs in .... What did you say your role was again, in helping nasa out with their ALSJ ?" (post #38) is very close to the line. You have used 'fak(ing)... Apollo photographs' and "role in help nasa (sic) out with their ALSJ...' together. It would be easy for someone to read that and assume you are saying Craig has helped fake Apollo images. Please be very careful with an accusation approaching anything like that, because I won't tolerate it. - The ALSJ is hosted on a NASA server, but is NOT under NASA control. It's run by Eric Jones, who lives in Australia. He amends it, and NASA uploads the amendments. They have no control of the contents. Craig's name has appeared on the acknowledgments page because he has assisted Eric in some way. I'm happy to provide you with Eric's e-mail address, if you are unable to find it, and you can address questions about the ALSJ to him. - Craig, if you are not answering Duane's three questions, would you say why you won't or cannot answer them? Evan, I'm just not dealing with Duane anymore. I simply will not continue conversations with members who chose to apply the term NAZI to my name either directly, by implication or by comparison. Duane is guilty of comparing me to a Nazi storm trooper. I'll answer the questions for you Evan. 1. The photos are the proof. There is ONLY ONE SHADOW. Its the same in ALL 6 photographs. 2. The camera is at my head. 3 The images are the proof that they are not cropped. Check out the skewing of the buildings. Finally WHY would I attempt to alter any of these images when I give complete detail of how they were taken and then ASK that anyone who is interested reacreate the tests themself? Edited September 7, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Craig - thank you for answering the questions. Duane et al, if you have issues with the replies, please state them clearly here. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 Jack, any comment about the images I have shown? They would appear to be direct refutation of your claims. Once again I add that they are from websites totally unrelated to Apollo, debunking, 9/11, or anything like that. I'll also add that I do not know any of the photographers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Both arguments seem logical to me , so at this point I'm wondering if we are talking about two entirely different concepts here ? .. I will take some photos of my own to see if I can make any sense out of any of this. Hurrah! That's what I did, and proved to myself that Jack's study is incorrect. I also found dozens of images online (non-related to Apollo) which show exactly the effect Jack says is impossible (similar to what Evan has done). Hopefully you'll be able to upload some of your images when you do take them. See how much trouble you have recreating these two. From a technical point of view, Craig's analysis and explanation of this seems spot on. I think you're a bit churlish with your comments about him posting it on Apollohaox.net first and inviting comments: what's wrong with having something checked for errors before presenting it as evidence? As for the back-slapping comment: haven't you yourself partaken of more than your fair share of "back-slapping" on Youtube? Maybe Jack should take a leaf out of Craig's book and invite inspection of his analyses before he posts them on a website as proof that Apollo photos were faked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 9, 2007 Author Share Posted September 9, 2007 Both arguments seem logical to me , so at this point I'm wondering if we are talking about two entirely different concepts here ? .. I will take some photos of my own to see if I can make any sense out of any of this. Hurrah! That's what I did, and proved to myself that Jack's study is incorrect. I also found dozens of images online (non-related to Apollo) which show exactly the effect Jack says is impossible (similar to what Evan has done). Hopefully you'll be able to upload some of your images when you do take them. See how much trouble you have recreating these two. From a technical point of view, Craig's analysis and explanation of this seems spot on. I think you're a bit churlish with your comments about him posting it on Apollohaox.net first and inviting comments: what's wrong with having something checked for errors before presenting it as evidence? As for the back-slapping comment: haven't you yourself partaken of more than your fair share of "back-slapping" on Youtube? Maybe Jack should take a leaf out of Craig's book and invite inspection of his analyses before he posts them on a website as proof that Apollo photos were faked I think I got one "backslap" and lots of folks fixing my mistake do to my poor ability as a writer. I also had one technical error, the horizontal AOF, which was corrrected. Clearly , to me at least, asking for fact checking is akin to peer review. I INVITED people to pick holes in my work, and was open to correction if I was wrong. And to date, neither White not Percy have been able to offer any empirical prrof that my analysis is incorrect. So far all we have seen is the standard Jack White "I says it's so therefore it is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I'd have to agree with Craig. So far, based on past track record, I would have to say that the quote: 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. is totally inaccurate and does not reflect reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 12, 2007 Share Posted September 12, 2007 Jack, you have not attempted to refute the images which disprove your statements. Please do so - or retract your claims - otherwise I will make statements regarding the veracity of your claims on this board. As I pointed out in the previous post you have said: Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT. So far on this section of the Forum, you have made claims but not refuted specific evidence against those claims. People (note the plural) have asked you to show why their rebuttals are wrong and you have failed to do so. As a member of this Forum you are free to post whatever you like - as long as it is within the rules. That being said, however, why should anyone give any credence to your claims when you fail to defend them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 (edited) I haven't had the time to devote to taking any of my own photographs yet , but in studying the ones you lads have posted here , I have observed some very interesting things about shadows and the amount of light within shadows of photos that are taken out in bright sunlight . And after looking at these photos , compared to the phony Apollo photos , I am even more convinced that the alleged moon photos were staged , using indoor lunar sets and artificial lighting . I will expand upon this when I have more time and also get back with my own findings of off side shadows . Edited September 14, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 I haven't had the time to devote to taking any of my own photographs yet , but in studying the ones you lads have posted here , I have observed some very interesting things about shadows and the amount of light within shadows of photos that are taken out in bright sunlight .And after looking at these photos , compared to the phony Apollo photos , I am even more convinced that the alleged moon photos were staged , using indoor lunar sets and artificial lighting . I will expand upon this when I have more time and also get back with my own findings of off side shadows . I haven't had the time to devote to taking any of my own photographs yet , but in studying the ones you lads have posted here , I have observed some very interesting things about shadows and the amount of light within shadows of photos that are taken out in bright sunlight .And after looking at these photos , compared to the phony Apollo photos , I am even more convinced that the alleged moon photos were staged , using indoor lunar sets and artificial lighting . I will expand upon this when I have more time and also get back with my own findings of off side shadows . Duane...it is hilarious how these guys keep showing photos of shadows attempting to show that A PHOTOGRAPHER'S SHADOW DOES NOT BEGIN AT HIS FEET. Have you noticed that not a single photo posted shows the photographer's FEET, and that the shadow is not connected to the feet? All their efforts are a smokescreen to obscure the truth. I will concede that CERTAIN TRICKERY can show shadows to one side, but that is not a true test of how Apollo photos were taken...that is, instead of the camera pointing forward, it can be turned sideways and achieve different shadow angles. Images can be cropped showing a shadow to one side. There are lots of tricks that can be used. But allegedly, the astronauts did not use such tricks. If they will show us some photos with the shadows not leading toward the feet, then I might take some interest. It would indeed take a master photographer to photograph a cameraman's shadow not connected to his feet! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Jack .... I believe that some of the Apollo 12 photos in question , were possibly cropped from some of the PAN photos , and that's why the shadows are so far to the side of the photos , or show only half of the astronot's shadow in a couple of them . But I am more interested in the way the shadows look , opposed to their position in the photo... I know that shadows are suppossed to be much darker on the Moon , but I recently read an article explaining that even though Moon shadows are darker than Earth shadows ( because of the lack of blue sky reflection) , they still contain some light within the shadow . Yet if you look at the Apollo photos and the astronot's shadows , there is no light whatsoever inside their shadows ... In fact , they look as though they are solid black , as if somone has filled them in with a black magic marker . It would be interesting to see if computer enhancement analysis can detect any light at all within any of the Apollo astronot shadows .... Considering the blinding brighness of the Sun and the reflective lunar surface , I would think there should be some reflected light in those strange looking pitch black shadows . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 Jack .... I believe that some of the Apollo 12 photos in question , were possibly cropped from some of the PAN photos , and that's why the shadows are so far to the side of the photos , or show only half of the astronot's shadow in a couple of them .But I am more interested in the way the shadows look , opposed to their position in the photo... I know that shadows are suppossed to be much darker on the Moon , but I recently read an article explaining that even though Moon shadows are darker than Earth shadows ( because of the lack of blue sky reflection) , they still contain some light within the shadow . Yet if you look at the Apollo photos and the astronot's shadows , there is no light whatsoever inside their shadows ... In fact , they look as though they are solid black , as if somone has filled them in with a black magic marker . It would be interesting to see if computer enhancement analysis can detect any light at all within any of the Apollo astronot shadows .... Considering the blinding brighness of the Sun and the reflective lunar surface , I would think there should be some reflected light in those strange looking pitch black shadows . Duane...not ALL shadows are solid black. I can point to numerous pix of the LEM where the shadow side of the LEM is well lighted, apparently by auxilliary lighting. For instance, the ladder descent photos of Apollo 11 are very well lighted, though in shadow. I have done chroma analysis of other shadows, as you mention, and they are the DARKEST BLACK things in the photos. When the RGB chroma scale is reduced to zero, the shadows remain...a dense black...as if filled in. Sufficiently lightened, SOME DETAIL SHOULD REMAIN, such as pebbles or rocks...but I have not found any yet. So SOME shadows are extremely dense...but others are not. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 (edited) Jack ... I was speaking of just the astronot's shadows , as possibly being either pasted into the photos , or filled in by black markers . The shadows of the LM and other things have a bit of a more natural look to them , because of the slight light reflection inside of them ... but the astronot's shadows look very strange ... Especially the one's which were pasted into the photos BACKWARDS ! I wonder how can it be possible that the astronot's shadows are solid black , showing no light reflection within them at all , and no details either , such as the texture of the lunar surface beneath them ? Edited September 14, 2007 by Duane Daman 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