Bernice Moore Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Hi Jack: B........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Now all this has been raised before in this thread. It is important to review that thread to see how the conditions for original claim change as the challenge is met, and how it shifts away from having any relevance to Apollo. The particular claim being disputed is this one: I think this demonstrates a point raised in another thread: - Moving the goalposts. Every time the challenge is met, change the conditions. Eventually a set of conditions will be found that cannot be met... but the conditions will have no resemblance to the conditions for the Apollo images. The goalposts are not even on the same playing field any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 (edited) Hi Jack:B........ And by simply aiming the camera upwards the shadow of the photographer (in this case the camera stand) extends from the base of the stand at the floor and points AWAY from the bottom center of the frame. It does this because it is a standard principal of photogrpahy...a principal that appears "lost' on the self professed 'expert" Jack White. Edited January 2, 2008 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 2, 2008 Author Share Posted January 2, 2008 Now all this has been raised before in this thread. It is important to review that thread to see how the conditions for original claim change as the challenge is met, and how it shifts away from having any relevance to Apollo. The particular claim being disputed is this one: I think this demonstrates a point raised in another thread: - Moving the goalposts. Every time the challenge is met, change the conditions. Eventually a set of conditions will be found that cannot be met... but the conditions will have no resemblance to the conditions for the Apollo images. The goalposts are not even on the same playing field any more. No wonder you are confused. You are using the OLD study, not the one now posted on Aulis! David and I agreed that we should remove any marginal images and USE ONLY SHADOWS WHICH POINT AWAY FROM CENTER. Shadows which point away from center CANNOT GO TO THE FEET OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Shadows which point away from center CANNOT GO TO THE FEET OF THEPHOTOGRAPHER. Jack No wonder you are confused, you don't understand the very basics of photography.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 No wonder you are confused. You are using the OLD study, not the one now posted on Aulis! David and I agreed that we should remove any marginal images and USE ONLY SHADOWS WHICH POINT AWAY FROM CENTER.Shadows which point away from center CANNOT GO TO THE FEET OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER. Jack Oh, okay. Sorry about that. The new study can be found here: http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/shadowdebunkwork.jpg Jack - can I have permission to reproduce it here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 (edited) Jack - can I have permission to reproduce it here? The leader of the pack of piranhas decides which bait Jack might decide to take next .... OLD BAIT http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html NEW BAIT http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...4297&page=4 Edited January 2, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Jack - can I have permission to reproduce it here? The leader of the pack of piranhas decides which bait Jack might decide to take next .... OLD BAIT http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html NEW BAIT http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...4297&page=4 Duane Do you think it's ok for anyone to post what they consider proof of a conspiracy on this forum and for no-one to be allowed to critically examine and where necessary rebut that evidence? How is it possible to "bait" somone by asking them to defend THEIR OWN WORK??!! Shouldn't that be a minimum standard for any conspiracy researcher? Perhaps you can help Jack out. Earlier he asked people to produce a photo meeting certain conditions - the photographer's shadow had to point away from the centre, and the photographer's feet had to be visible in the same image. I've met that challenge, and asked Jack to produce an image from the Apollo collection that meets the same criteria. I think Jack will have a hard time finding such a photo, so maybe you could do it for him? If no such photo exists, perhaps you'd be kind enough to ask him why he's sending people off on a wild goose chase? Or maybe you can contact the authors of these images and ask how they faked the shadows? http://www.flickr.com/photos/brendablue/578267/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidambridge/73873211/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/atc/270275437/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/evaekeblad/369192843/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/evaekeblad/371108294/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/57011100@N00/347287780/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/snig/57638845/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Duane - as usual you are noise and no substance. Please don't distract the thread from people who are capable of making a contribution to it. Now, to begin I have recreated the images Jack says are impossible / faked. These are taken from his latest Aulis work, and use the four images he has shown. I couldn't wait until the shadow lengths were exactly the same, and I didn't have a LM handy... but the point is demonstrated. These are not necessarily within the condition jack stipulated in his latest post, because his condition do not match the condition of the Apollo images. I will post images conforming to Jacks new conditions later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Jack - can I have permission to reproduce it here? The leader of the pack of piranhas decides which bait Jack might decide to take next .... OLD BAIT http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html NEW BAIT http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...4297&page=4 Well let’s see your buddy Jack compared his critics to Nazis and claims they forged photos showing that his claim is wrong, you call them (us?) “the pack of piranhas” who “bait Jack “ So tell me who are the people being unduly hostile on this thread? Explain how asking Jack permission to post his updated study after Jack complained that the older study which Evan posted could have left him “confused” baiting? What exactly was the point you were trying to make by posting those links? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Duane - as usual you are noise and no substance. Please don't distract the thread from people who are capable of making a contribution to it.Now, to begin I have recreated the images Jack says are impossible / faked. These are taken from his latest Aulis work, and use the four images he has shown. I couldn't wait until the shadow lengths were exactly the same, and I didn't have a LM handy... but the point is demonstrated. These are not necessarily within the condition jack stipulated in his latest post, because his condition do not match the condition of the Apollo images. I will post images conforming to Jacks new conditions later. Thanks for the piccys comparing the Apollo astronot with the photographer .... They do look almost IDENTICAL ..... Which "begs the question " ... WHY IS THE ASTRONOT HOLDING THE CAMERA UP TO HIS FACE WHEN THERE WAS NO VIEWFINDER TO LOOK THROUGH ? .... Why not just keep it attached to his chestplate , like NASA designed it ? Something about those Apollo photos look kinda fishy to me , that has nothing to do with the position of the shadow . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 So tell me who are the people being unduly hostile on this thread? Lamson , Burton , Parker and now you . Explain how asking Jack permission to post his updated study after Jack complained that the older study which Evan posted could have left him “confused” baiting? Because Evan is being a hypocrite ... He asks Jack a question very politely on this forum , while ripping him apart and character assassinating him behind his back on the Apollo Hoax forum ... This is what is known as a set up, and the point of it is to make Jack look bad . What exactly was the point you were trying to make by posting those links? The point was to warn Jack about Burton's tactics of setting him up , by using Windley's old "rebuttal" . It seems that you ALL enjoy Craig's hobby of FLOGGING A DEAD HORSE ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 There is a standard of behaviour expected on this Forum, and I try to maintain it. The fact that I - and others - are demonstrating that Jack (whose work you claim is undeniable proof) has made serious flaws in his Apollo studies is nothing more than highlighting the truth. Don't you always go on about the truth? If Jack were right in this particular claim, then the photos would be impossible; they would have to have been manipulated to get the shadows pointing in the right directions. The facts are that the shadows have not been altered, that Jack's claim in this regard is wrong, and that he should admit it. You clinging to the erroneous premise espoused by the study merely demonstrates why Jack should admit he is wrong. It's not a personal attack - it's ensuring that accuracy is maintained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 This has nothing to do with "truth" and "accuracy " ... It has to do with you and your Apollo defending friends literally flogging a dead horse just to make Jack look bad . Your politeness on this forum is completely false and hypocritical from the way you conduct yourself on other forums ... Your purpose and Lamson's ( by dragging this subject up again ) is for one purpose only ... To character assassinate Jack and everyone else who dares to speak out against the official Apollo record in any respect . Jack has already stated his position , as have the rest of you and you are never going to come to an agreement on this .... So if you believe you have proven him wrong , then be satisfied with that and move on . Or as my buddy greenmagoos just stated on his new Apollo hoax video , which busts out Neil Armstrong and author Hansen of 'First Man '... "For a friend as he battles a crew of vampiric Apollogists at a forum. Listen chaps. If an Astro-not has a camera strapped to his chest in a pressurised space suit, he can't shoot with camera stuck up at his ear. Those photos are cropped. Move on and learn to deal with it. " ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 It has everything to do with truth and accuracy. Jack said something demonstrably false, has been thoroughly proven wrong, and refuses to take his disinfo down from aulis.com and continues to defend it here. As long as he keeps pushing his disinfo, people will keep calling him out for it. Seriously Duane, why don't you go take a couple pictures yourself. It's easy and you might learn something. 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