Jack White Apollo thread.

[Craig Lamson]

White said this:

All of my Apollo studies are "into the public domain" and have been for years. Visit:

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm

Study all of them and post refutations of any or all of them on the Conspiracies Forum.

I will comment on any valid objections which contain no personal attacks.

Jack

He can start here, not a personal attack in sight:

http://www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

Edited June 7, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Dave Greer]

This was my previous response to Jack's altered study the Craig has addressed, alongside his original claim.

Hopefully this particular claim can be laid to rest.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Dave Greer

[Greg Burnham]

The first thing that strikes me as odd, is the lack of continuity between the shadows cast by objects on the lunar surface and the shadow cast by the astronaut/photographer. For instance, the angle of the shadow that is cast by the astronaut isn't parallel to the shadow cast by the FLAG and POLE -- or the shadows cast by other objects either. I don't know if they should be parallel or not, but it would seem so.

[Jack White]

The first thing that strikes me as odd, is the lack of continuity between the shadows cast by objects on the lunar surface and the shadow cast by the astronaut/photographer. For instance, the angle of the shadow that is cast by the astronaut isn't parallel to the shadow cast by the FLAG and POLE -- or the shadows cast by other objects either. I don't know if they should be parallel or not, but it would seem so.

Monk...are you familiar with all of my studies? Check them out. I have the luxury of ONLY ONE

of them having to be proved fake. My detractors have to prove that ALL are genuine.

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

The first thing that strikes me as odd, is the lack of continuity between the shadows cast by objects on the lunar surface and the shadow cast by the astronaut/photographer. For instance, the angle of the shadow that is cast by the astronaut isn't parallel to the shadow cast by the FLAG and POLE -- or the shadows cast by other objects either. I don't know if they should be parallel or not, but it would seem so.

Monk...are you familiar with all of my studies? Check them out. I have the luxury of ONLY ONE

of them having to be proved fake. My detractors have to prove that ALL are genuine.

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm

Jack

So, are you finally admitting your study posted above is wrong?

[Craig Lamson]

The first thing that strikes me as odd, is the lack of continuity between the shadows cast by objects on the lunar surface and the shadow cast by the astronaut/photographer. For instance, the angle of the shadow that is cast by the astronaut isn't parallel to the shadow cast by the FLAG and POLE -- or the shadows cast by other objects either. I don't know if they should be parallel or not, but it would seem so.

Just curious, why do you believe shadows depicted in photos should be parallel?

[Greg Burnham]

The first thing that strikes me as odd, is the lack of continuity between the shadows cast by objects on the lunar surface and the shadow cast by the astronaut/photographer. For instance, the angle of the shadow that is cast by the astronaut isn't parallel to the shadow cast by the FLAG and POLE -- or the shadows cast by other objects either. I don't know if they should be parallel or not, but it would seem so.

Just curious, why do you believe shadows depicted in photos should be parallel?

Common sense.

However, I don't claim that shadows should be parallel in ALL photos. Just in photos where the objects casting shadows presumably share the SAME light source--and that source is THE SUN.

If the shadows that are cast from both objects (the photographer/astronaut and the Flag Pole) share the same light source then the shadows should be parallel--unless the proximity of the light source is relatively close, measurably skewed, or BETWEEN the objects. Note that the proximity of the light source to the target(s) rules that effect.

In the case of the alleged lunar photos, the light source is presumably the sun which is neither "close" nor is it "in between" the objects casting shadows. Therefore, any differential in angle between the two shadows SHOULD be highly MINIMIZED--but it is not. It is pronounced.

It appears that there is a separate light source for the object in the foreground (the astronaut/photographer) and another for the object in the background (flag). The astronaut seems to be "back lit" casting a shadow to his immediate front, while the Flag Pole seems to have a shadow cast from a different light source (off to our right POV in the two photos on the left) and the shadow cast from the "solar umbrella" (photo on right) comes from the opposite direction. The point is clear: the ANGLE of the shadow cast by the photographer SHOULD be parallel to that of the shadow cast by the other objects in the photo if the ONLY light source is the SUN.

This anomaly is seen in several photos. I don't claim to know what this means. But, it does seem odd.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Craig Lamson]

The first thing that strikes me as odd, is the lack of continuity between the shadows cast by objects on the lunar surface and the shadow cast by the astronaut/photographer. For instance, the angle of the shadow that is cast by the astronaut isn't parallel to the shadow cast by the FLAG and POLE -- or the shadows cast by other objects either. I don't know if they should be parallel or not, but it would seem so.

Just curious, why do you believe shadows depicted in photos should be parallel?

Common sense.

However, I don't claim that shadows should be parallel in ALL photos. Just in photos where the objects casting shadows presumably share the SAME light source--and that source is THE SUN.

If the shadows casted from both objects (the photographer/astronaut and the Flag Pole) share the same light source then the shadows should be parallel--unless the proximity of the light source is relatively close, measurably skewed, or BETWEEN the objects. Note that the proximity of the light source to the target(s) rules that effect.

In the case of the alleged lunar photos, the light source is presumably the sun which is neither "close" nor is it "in between" the objects casting shadows. Therefore, any differential in angle between the two shadows SHOULD be highly MINIMIZED--but it is not. It is pronounced.

It appears that there is a separate light source for the object in the foreground (the astronaut/photographer) and another for the object in the background (flag). The astronaut seems to be "back lit" casting a shadow to his immediate front, while the Flag Pole seems to have a shadow cast from a different light source (off to our right POV).

This anomaly is seen in several photos. I don't claim to know what this means. But, it does seem odd.

Is it really an anomaly or rather an inaccurate grasp of the principles of photographic rendering?

You do understand, that parallel shadows, or normal everyday objects will only be seen as by the eye or photographed by the camera as parallel under very strict conditions such as viewing them from directly overhead?

You can see this all around you in everyday life, why should it be different on the moon. IIRC you are (or ar least were) a MC officer...correct? A big part of your training is to observe carefully the situations that surround you. WHy not apply that training to this situation.

Better yet why not record it with your digital camera and show us the results? Photograph some items similar to the apollo photos you posted in early or late day light. Let's see if common sense really prevails in this case.

I'll even help you get started. Here is photo of a dirt road in Colorado I took recently. The edges of the road are parallel for the most part. Did they render as parallel in the photo or do they remind you of the shadows in the Apollo photos?

[Greg Burnham]

I'll even help you get started. Here is photo of a dirt road in Colorado I took recently. The edges of the road are parallel for the most part. Did they render as parallel in the photo or do they remind you of the shadows in the Apollo photos?

ROFLMFAO!!! You are hysterically funny, Craig! I had no idea you had such a capacity for humor. Thanks so much for the levity. It is true that your example lacks intellectual honesty and you know it.

EOM

[Craig Lamson]

I'll even help you get started. Here is photo of a dirt road in Colorado I took recently. The edges of the road are parallel for the most part. Did they render as parallel in the photo or do they remind you of the shadows in the Apollo photos?

ROFLMFAO!!! You are hysterically funny, Craig! I had no idea you had such a capacity for humor. Thanks so much for the levity. It is true that your example lacks intellectual honesty and you know it.

EOM

I'm glad you found it amusing, too bad you don't understand it.

But hey lets give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to explain in detail why the example fails.

I'm always up for a good laugh too!

[Greg Burnham]

I'm glad you found it amusing, too bad you don't understand it.

But hey lets give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to explain in detail why the example fails.

I'm always up for a good laugh too!

Most optical illusions are the result of 1) incongruent design elements at opposite ends of parallel lines, 2) influence of background patterns on the overall design, 3) adjustment of our perception at the boundaries of areas of high contrast, 4) afterimages resulting from eye movements or from kinetic displays, or 5) inability to interpret the spatial structure of an object from the context provided by the picture.

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/graphics/

You seem to be committing multiple errors based mostly on #1 above. The picture you posted shows no discernible vectors established by a light source resulting in "shadows" -- indeed there are no shadows of virtue visible at all!

Nice try, but, as usual, no dice--

[Evan Burton]

Greg,

Have you tried to reproduce the images yourself?

Craig suggested it, and so do I.

If you'd like simple but detailed instructions, I'm happy to provide them.

[Dave Greer]

The first thing that strikes me as odd, is the lack of continuity between the shadows cast by objects on the lunar surface and the shadow cast by the astronaut/photographer. For instance, the angle of the shadow that is cast by the astronaut isn't parallel to the shadow cast by the FLAG and POLE -- or the shadows cast by other objects either. I don't know if they should be parallel or not, but it would seem so.

You shouldn't expect those shadows to appear parallel from the point of view of the camera, in the same way as you wouldn't expect parallel railway lines to appear parallel when you're looking down them (they appear to converge).

If you have a camera, it's very easy indeed to take photos that show apparently non-parallel shadows.

If you don't have a camera, a simple Google image search will reveal hundreds or thousands of such images, see below for an example.

[Craig Lamson]

I'm glad you found it amusing, too bad you don't understand it.

But hey lets give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to explain in detail why the example fails.

I'm always up for a good laugh too!

Most optical illusions are the result of 1) incongruent design elements at opposite ends of parallel lines, 2) influence of background patterns on the overall design, 3) adjustment of our perception at the boundaries of areas of high contrast, 4) afterimages resulting from eye movements or from kinetic displays, or 5) inability to interpret the spatial structure of an object from the context provided by the picture.

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/graphics/

You seem to be committing multiple errors based mostly on #1 above. The picture you posted shows no discernible vectors established by a light source resulting in "shadows" -- indeed there are no shadows of virtue visible at all!

Nice try, but, as usual, no dice--

Lots of nice big words, I see google is your friend, but still you fail to understand why the simple image above blows your "common sense" right out of the water.

You fail to understand that the principal of the vanishing point applies with equal measure to shadows cast upon the ground as it does to static landmarks. This is NOT rocket science. Simple observation of the real world will can teach you this simple lesson if you open your eyes and see. Or if you prefer you can use google to find material that will help you learn.

Clavius has done the hard work for you...

http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/a11rear.html

http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/perspshdw.html

You are dead wrong. Your appeal to "common sense" has failed miserably.

You now face a huge dilemma

1) Continue to struggle along in an area where you have little knowlege in a vain attempt to save face..and continue to be wrong.

or

2) Learn this simple lesson, prove it to yourself by simple emperical testing, accept that your original statements are false and move along.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

I will attempt to reproduce the anomaly myself. If I can, then it's probably not an anomaly at all. Like I said from the beginning, it seemed odd to me, but I didn't claim to know what it means. Perhaps it will turn out to be nothing.

I don't appreciate the condescending attitude, Craig. I do appreciate the examples offered by others here--especially Dave Greer's pictures taken in the snow. The railroad tracks, however, were of no help.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Greg Burnham