Duane Daman Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 Some of the shadows were most likely pasted into the photos after the fact because it was obvious that the original shadows were produced using artificial lighting , would be my guess .... So they were covering their asses . But inspite of all of nasa's hard work , some of the photo fakers turned out to be Whistle-Blowers and their photos slipped by nasa's quality control . If the photo in the snow is suppossed to prove something , I'm afraid you missed the point ... Not seeing the subject creating the shadow , it would be impossible to tell if it is "correct" or not . This is NOT a question of elongated shadow lengths ... It's a question of the shape and position of the shadow matching the subject ... and it doesn't in the Conrad photo . I couldn't help but notice that you only did a vanishing point study on Percy's photo , but didn''t bother to do one on the Conrad Apollo photo ... Is there a reason for that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Some of the shadows were most likely pasted into the photos after the fact because it was obvious that the original shadows were produced using artificial lighting , would be my guess .... So they were covering their asses .But inspite of all of nasa's hard work , some of the photo fakers turned out to be Whistle-Blowers and their photos slipped by nasa's quality control . If the photo in the snow is suppossed to prove something , I'm afraid you missed the point ... Not seeing the subject creating the shadow , it would be impossible to tell if it is "correct" or not . This is NOT a question of elongated shadow lengths ... It's a question of the shape and position of the shadow matching the subject ... and it doesn't in the Conrad photo . I couldn't help but notice that you only did a vanishing point study on Percy's photo , but didn''t bother to do one on the Conrad Apollo photo ... Is there a reason for that ? It may suprise you Duane, but there is NOTHING harder in retouching than creating proper and BELIEVABLE shadows. Hard as heck with Photoshop, mostly IMPOSSIBLE with film based solutions. Forget cut and paste, and airbrush...not going to happen. Been there done that. There was no reason to put shadows into the Apollo images, you need the right quality of light to create the HIGHLIGHTS in the photographs and guess what? The proper light creates the proper shadows. In this case it was sunlight on the lunar surface.... A shadow I created today: http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view;jse...mp;forward=main What the real shadow looked like: http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd44/in..._330craig-1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 If the photo in the snow is suppossed to prove something , I'm afraid you missed the point ... Not seeing the subject creating the shadow , it would be impossible to tell if it is "correct" or not . The photo was displayed on a photography forum thread under the title "Show Me Your Shadow" - you can see the photographer's comments in the thread itself. I see no reason to suspect why the photo may be faked. The photo shows that low shadow angles can make shadows of humans appear distorted. http://forum.pbase.com/viewtopic.php?t=29163&start=15 This is NOT a question of elongated shadow lengths ... It's a question of the shape and position of the shadow matching the subject ... and it doesn't in the Conrad photo . Of course it is! If the shadow is elongated enough, then you won't see certain shadow features in the photo such as the angle of the knee etc. I couldn't help but notice that you only did a vanishing point study on Percy's photo , but didn''t bother to do one on the Conrad Apollo photo ... Is there a reason for that ? It was a "two for the price of one" - the yellow lines are from the original photo, the red ones correspond to Percy's added shadow. I couldn't say with any certainty which part of the shadow in the original matched up with a specific part of the astronaut's body - unsurprising since most of his shadow is out of the frame! The shadows in the image that I could match up with a reasonable degree of accuracy converged (i.e. they were congruent with the same light source). Percy's weren't, so his shadows can be proven to be incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 The photo was displayed on a photography forum thread under the title "Show Me Your Shadow" - you can see the photographer's comments in the thread itself. I see no reason to suspect why the photo may be faked. The photo shows that low shadow angles can make shadows of humans appear distorted. I never said the shadow in the snow picture may be faked .. I said without seeing the subject it would be impossible to tell if it was a match or not . Of course it is! If the shadow is elongated enough, then you won't see certain shadow features in the photo such as the angle of the knee etc. Nice excuse, but I'm not buying it . It was a "two for the price of one" - the yellow lines are from the original photo, the red ones correspond to Percy's added shadow. I couldn't say with any certainty which part of the shadow in the original matched up with a specific part of the astronaut's body - That's because it didn't match up with any part of the astronot's body . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 I never said the shadow in the snow picture may be faked .. I said without seeing the subject it would be impossible to tell if it was a match or not . The whole point was to demonstrate the effect on shadows that a low sun angle can have (as well as perspective). There's a low sun angle in the Conrad photo - as well as the undeniable fact that the shadow is being cast onto a downslope, exaggerating the effect even more. That's because it didn't match up with any part of the astronot's body . You've yet to demonstrate that. I can't say for certain which parts of the body match up with which parts of the shadow, but that's due to lack of available information. IMO what we're seeing is the elongated shadow of part of the astronaut's boot. Drawing a straight line through the back of COnrad's right heel and the convergence point, and extending it towards the bottom right of the image, shows it comes close to intersecting the shadow, but not quite. That suggests the shadow of the heel is indeed outside the frame of the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 I never said the shadow in the snow picture may be faked .. I said without seeing the subject it would be impossible to tell if it was a match or not . The whole point was to demonstrate the effect on shadows that a low sun angle can have (as well as perspective). There's a low sun angle in the Conrad photo - as well as the undeniable fact that the shadow is being cast onto a downslope, exaggerating the effect even more. That's because it didn't match up with any part of the astronot's body . You've yet to demonstrate that. I can't say for certain which parts of the body match up with which parts of the shadow, but that's due to lack of available information. IMO what we're seeing is the elongated shadow of part of the astronaut's boot. Drawing a straight line through the back of COnrad's right heel and the convergence point, and extending it towards the bottom right of the image, shows it comes close to intersecting the shadow, but not quite. That suggests the shadow of the heel is indeed outside the frame of the picture. Oh brother ... I do believe I've heard everything now ... " IMO what we're seeing is the elongated shadow of part of the astronaut's boot " Right ... and the reason there are no bootprints leading up to where Conrad is doing his little fly system dance is because he kicked over his own bootprints with moon dust !! You can't 'win ' this one Dave , no matter how fast you tap dance around the fact that Conrad's shadow is NOT a match for the position of his body . I took a walk tonight into the middle of the park in front of my house .. I used the light of a streetlamp on the sidewalk and went about 50 feet into the middle of the park , until my shadow was as elongated as the distance I travelled ... Then I turned sideways and bent my knee ... and guess what position my shadow was in ? I don't think I have to tell you because you already know the answer ... It MATCHED THE POSITION OF MY BODY ... Just like Percy's corrected shadow matched the position of Conrad's body . If you think I'm wrong , do that yourself ... or better yet , take a picture of a friend standing sideways to your camera on the beach with the Sun low in the sky and their shadow elongated , to see if you can match the shadow in the Apollo photo ... If you can match the Apollo shadow , then I will concede the argument .. If not , then you will need to admit ( if only to yourself ) that the shadow in the Apollo photo is a fake . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 I took a walk tonight into the middle of the park in front of my house .. I used the light of a streetlamp on the sidewalk and went about 50 feet into the middle of the park , until my shadow was as elongated as the distance I travelled ... Then I turned sideways and bent my knee ... and guess what position my shadow was in ? I don't think I have to tell you because you already know the answer ... It MATCHED THE POSITION OF MY BODY ... Just like Percy's corrected shadow matched the position of Conrad's body . The astronaut was not sideways to the light source, he was facing it. Whit the light head-on, the shadow will not bend along with the leg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 (edited) If the subject had been facing the light source his shadow would have been behind him , not to the left side of him . The close up artificial light source is coming from his right front side and casting a shadow to his left rear side ...Look at the photo again ... and then try another rebuttal . Edited September 25, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 If the subject had been facing the light source his shadow would have been behind him , not to the left side of him .The close up artificial light source is coming from his right front side and casting a shadow to his left rear side ...Look at the photo again ... and then try another rebuttal . Sheesh duane, he is FACING THE LIGHT! The shadow IS BEHIND HIM! No wonder you can't figure this stuff out...you can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 Sheesh craig , am I suppossed to believe a game playing jerk like you or my lying eyes ?? Look again ... The light source is to his RIGHT front and his faked shadow is to his LEFT rear ... It is NOT directly behind him . No wonder you're not famous like Jack White or David Percy ... You CAN'T see ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Sheesh craig , am I suppossed to believe a game playing jerk like you or my lying eyes ?? Look again ... The light source is to his RIGHT front and his faked shadow is to his LEFT rear ... It is NOT directly behind him . No wonder you're not famous like Jack White or David Percy ... You CAN'T see ! Ok Duane, whatever, you and your masters know best....too bad none of you understand light and shadow.... Light is at his front, shadow is at his back...quibble until the cows come home, it still will not erase your ignorance of hte subject matter not the truth about White and Percy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 (edited) Sheesh craig , am I suppossed to believe a game playing jerk like you or my lying eyes ?? Look again ... The light source is to his RIGHT front and his faked shadow is to his LEFT rear ... It is NOT directly behind him . No wonder you're not famous like Jack White or David Percy ... You CAN'T see ! Ok Duane, whatever, you and your masters know best....too bad none of you understand light and shadow.... Light is at his front, shadow is at his back...quibble until the cows come home, it still will not erase your ignorance of hte subject matter not the truth about White and Percy. I understand that the light source is to his RIGHT front of the astronot and that the faked shadow is to his LEFT rear .... If you want to pretend that's being "ignorant of the subject matter ", then fine ... Continue to make a fool of yourself . I am my own master ... No one thinks for me and no one ever will .. I make up my own mind as to what I perceive to be the truth .... On the other hand , it's quite evident who your "masters" are in this case ... The ones who faked Apollo . Your lame , 'rebuttals' only prove one thing Lamson ... You can't refute Percy's evidence and you can't defend this phony Apollo photograph with it's faked shadow . Edited September 25, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 The shadow only looks like it's to his left because it's on a slope, bending it downward in the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Sheesh craig , am I suppossed to believe a game playing jerk like you or my lying eyes ?? Look again ... The light source is to his RIGHT front and his faked shadow is to his LEFT rear ... It is NOT directly behind him . No wonder you're not famous like Jack White or David Percy ... You CAN'T see ! Ok Duane, whatever, you and your masters know best....too bad none of you understand light and shadow.... Light is at his front, shadow is at his back...quibble until the cows come home, it still will not erase your ignorance of hte subject matter not the truth about White and Percy. I understand that the light source is to his RIGHT front of the astronot and that the faked shadow is to his LEFT rear .... If you want to pretend that's being "ignorant of the subject matter ", then fine ... Continue to make a fool of yourself . I am my own master ... No one thinks for me and no one ever will .. I make up my own mind as to what I perceive to be the truth .... On the other hand , it's quite evident who your "masters" are in this case ... The ones who faked Apollo . Your lame , 'rebuttals' only prove one thing Lamson ... You can't refute Percy's evidence and you can't defend this phony Apollo photograph with it's faked shadow . Blah Blah Blah, I've refuted his "not dark enough sillyness", And Dave has clearly shown Percy got his "shadow alteration" all wrong. Not much left of this one duane. And besides its YOUR parroted claim and you offer NOTHING to support it. YOU PROVE YOUR POINT FOR ONCE. Your "perception of truth" is meaningless. You take your masters word on blind faith and you don't have the skill sot understand otherwise. Of course PERCY has yet to defend is silly claim with empirical evidence, nor have you. You just let him do your thinking for you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 (edited) I knew that the Apollo photography was faked long before I ever knew about Percy or White ... So once again , no matter how many times you repeat this lie , it will not make it true ... They are not my "masters" in any respect . You have tapped danced around this one in your typical fashion ... You can't prove that the shadow in this photo is real , so you go off topic to attack David Percy again . Neither you or Dave have proven anything , except that you have no real rebuttal to this faked shadow photo .. and that you both will use any desperate measures necessary to defend every single one of nasa's phony photos . If you really believe the light source is coming from the FRONT , then I guess that means nasa not only got the shape of the shadow wrong , but also it's position on the moonset ! Looks like you shot yourself in your own foot with that little mistake craig ... Maybe you will be more careful the next time you decide to follow phunk's incorrect lead . Edited September 25, 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