Craig Lamson Posted September 21, 2007 Author Share Posted September 21, 2007 (edited) Jack,You made a claim about the photography. Myself and others have shown examples which would seem to disprove your claims. You have not tried to address the rebuttal, and instead remark that you believe your e-mails are being intercepted. You do not disprove the rebuttal. You have also said that you are willing to correct any mistake you make - yet so far have failed to do so. What do you call someone who makes statements and then does not live up to that statement, someone who gives an undertaking but does not honour that undertaking.. again and again? White sez... "Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT." ...what a joke! Edited September 21, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I continue to be amused by the Bad Astronomy guys saying that the shadow of a photographer DOES NOT LEAD TO HIS FEET. They have not yet showed an example WITH HIS FEET IN THE PHOTO and the shadow originating somewhere other than the feet. I'm waiting to witness such a phenomenon. Photoshopping doesn't count. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 (edited) Jack ... I still think that some of those way off center Apollo 12 astronot shadows photos were croped from the PANS . And speaking of the PANS , why do the astronot's dense , solid black shadows only show up in one location in the 360 degree PAN shots if they were turing their bodies around to take all of the photos , which were later stitched together ? .... Shouldn't their shadows make an appearence somewhere else , even as possibly an off side shadow ? ... Or would the fake looking shadows only show up with the spotlight 'Sun' directly behind them ? Edited September 21, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Jack: The pictures you're talking about in your studies do not include the astronaut's feet. No one is claiming that shadows don't lead to feet, what is being said is that perspective makes them not lead to the bottom center of the image. In fact on flat ground with a level camera and the photographer standing up straight, the shadow will always remain parallel to the edge of the frame but not centered unless the camera is pointing exactly downsun. Feet have nothing to do with it, the claims in your study are wrong, and I honestly believe you know we are right and are afraid to set the precident of admitting your error. Duane: A photograph taken with a camera set for a sunlit scene will not pick up the the faint light in the darkest shadows, those areas will be underexposed. You can't take those photos and then lighten them in photoshop to see what's in the shadow, if the info is not in the original pic you can't magically recreate it with photoshop, especially if you're using reduced size jpgs from the web and not the original scans. As for the pans, why would there be more than one shadow? If you stand in one place and turn, your shadow stays in the same place on the ground, it doesn't rotate around with you. Only the frame of the pan that included the ground downsun from the photographer would include his shadow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 21, 2007 Author Share Posted September 21, 2007 (edited) I continue to be amused by the Bad Astronomy guys saying thatthe shadow of a photographer DOES NOT LEAD TO HIS FEET. They have not yet showed an example WITH HIS FEET IN THE PHOTO and the shadow originating somewhere other than the feet. I'm waiting to witness such a phenomenon. Photoshopping doesn't count. Jack Wrong again White. None of us has said any such thing. We all agree that a photographer who is backlit will have shadow that starts at his or her feet. You making this a big deal is simply your failed attempt to "trick" the unknowing. Its a red herring actually. Why not try and refute the evidence that is posted in this very thread. Show us why a level camera with 50 degree horizontal FOV aimed 20 degrees off axis from down sun and with the photographer standing UPRIGHT, CANNOT produce a shadow that is parallel with the edge of the frame and OFFSET to the side of the frame. YOu CLAIM THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE. PROVE IT! Maybe you can get Percy to come out of hiding and try and defend your silly theory. Na, that will never happen, he does not have the stones to debate in a public forum. So when will you finally admit you are wrong about the Apollo photographs ( as well as the many, many empirical examples take here on earth) that show offset shadows? Mountains of emiprical proof places your theory and "expertise" in tatters on the floor. Continue to be amused until the cows come home, what is really amusing is seeing you destroy the little that is remaining of your reputation as a "photo expert" by continuing to hold onto your failed theory. You have just failed photography 101. Edited September 21, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 (edited) What Jack has said: "Axis of shadow must point towards bottom center" "His shadow should point in the same direction in all three photos" "Merely panning the camera would not have this effect" (Specifically in reference to images AS12-47-6984, -6985, and -6986) (Source: http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_6.html ) Craig has completely disproved those assertions: http://www.infocusinc.net/apollo.htm Jack then only takes two of Craig's images, extending the centreline of the shadows to say that they do go to bottom centre, but omits other images in the same sequence that specifically disprove his assertion. Jack's selection: The full sequence: Jack has only chosen the images that support his assertion, and discarded those images that disprove his assertion. He has also 'skewed' the blue line in the left-hand image to support his argument. Take a look at the blue line in the right-hand image; it roughly parallels the left-hand side of the shadow. In the left-hand image though, the blue line does NOT run parallel to the left-hand side of the shadow. If the blue line were running parallel to the left-hand edge of the shadow, it would point towards the bottom left of the image and not the centre as Jack has claimed. Craig points out the flaws in Jack's argument in this post. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=117081 Kevin pointed out Jack's quote, pointing out it was wrong. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=117234 Jack also says in post #34: BUT 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...st&p=117329 ) Again: if the shadow DOES NOT POINT TOWARD the center of the photo it cannot be an uncropped original photo Craig pointed out - with images - that once again Jack was incorrect: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=117330 Jack then accuses Craig of misquoting him, but Craig proves that he did NOT misquote jack: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=117462 There was no apology to Craig for that accusation. Now, once more, Jack has said: if the shadow DOES NOT POINT TOWARD the center of the photo it cannot be an uncropped original photo I gave multiple examples of where this statement is incorrect: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=117480 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=117481 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=117484 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=117485 Dave shows that the statement made by Jack is incorrect: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=117736 Jack makes the boast: Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT. He has been proven wrong, but fails to admit it and fails to correct it. He has been reminded of this: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=117812 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=118122 If Jack continues to make assertions that he knows have been proven false, then he can only be described as being dishonest with his assertions in this matter. Edited to add: It should also be noted that this is not the first time Jack raised this issue and has been told that he was in error: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8510 Edited September 22, 2007 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 More examples of where Jack fails to live up to his proclaimed principles. Jack makes a claim about Apollo image AS12-49-7278, specifically saying: The "sun" is behind the photographer's left shoulder (Source: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/...-1190070035.jpg ) Dave makes a rebuttal, in which he clearly demonstrates that the sun is NOT coming from behind the photographer's left shoulder (about 7 o'clock), but rather from the left front (10 o'clock - 11 o'clock). http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=118789 Jack does not respond but instead engages Duane in playful banter. No correction to the assertion is made. Once more Jack has made a claim which is proven to be false, and he fails to correct it. ************************ In this thread http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10998 Jack has asked by the LRV tracks have disappeared between two photos. In the study, Jack said: "... repeated the flag salute pose from almost the same spot." "Like identical notes on a musical scale, the flag, the LEM and LRV were identically relocated (color dots)." When the uncropped images were placed side-by-side, it was apparent they were taken from different positions. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/...-1189904585.jpg Jack's cropping of the images gave the impression they were taken from the same spot. Dave gives a credible explanation as to why the LRV tracks were not visible in the foreground: http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/hea...ck/tracks_1.jpg ************************ In this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10008 Jack crops and rotates images to make them appear as though they were all practically the same; in fact Jack calls them "...four near-identical photos...". Jack baulks when asked to provide the image catalogue numbers. Examination of the uncropped and unrotated images show that they are part of a clearing sequence and not "near-identical". There is no acknowledgement from Jack. *********************** In this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10031 Jack accuses the Moderators of censoring his thread. This was proven inaccurate. There is no acknowledgement from Jack. *********************** In this thread http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8711 Jack claims that the EVA suits worn during the Apollo 11 mission are different between boarding the spacecraft and during the EVA. dave points out that Jack is in error. No acknowledgment from Jack. *********************** In this post http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=103190 Jack accuses me of locking a thread. Andy confirms that the audit logs show I never locked it. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=103408 No apology from Jack. *********************** This demonstrates that Jack White continually makes erroneous statements and refuses to correct them. He knowingly posts incorrect information. He has skewed data to favour his own statements. He makes accusations towards people but does not withdraw them when they are proven false. His reliability and honesty regarding the aforementioned instances, and his Apollo studies in general, are at best questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 22, 2007 Author Share Posted September 22, 2007 Nice summary Evan. Speaks VOLUMES. Here is how Jack White has aptly described himself. I must agree it fits him perfectly. "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 Here is how Jack White has aptly described himself. I must agree it fits him perfectly."There are none so blind as those who refuse to see." PROJECTION is one of the games so typical of all disinformation artists . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 If no-one objects, I will move Duane's image claims to a new thread; it can be discussed there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 (edited) If no-one objects, I will move Duane's image claims to a new thread; it can be discussed there. I started the new thread , so anything you want to move there is fine with me . Edited September 23, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 22, 2007 Author Share Posted September 22, 2007 If no-one objects, I will move Duane's image claims to a new thread; it can be discussed there. Please move my post as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 All posts moved. New thread is here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11053 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Back on topic then ... "Check my work please " on the Apollo hoax forum . If Apollo hadn't been a hoax these clowns wouldn't have anything to do and possibly have nothing to live for eitherr . http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...5394&page=1 ROTF !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 HOW ABSURD! Lamson's other images did not show a photographer's shadow! Photos of the "camera stand" did have shadows pointing correctly, with a person standing to one side. What a hoax! I use images which seemed to show a photographer. Jack 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