David G. Healy Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 'Bill Miller' wrote: [...]How do you know Costella is not a Photographic expert, are you willing to place your credentials (to the best of my knowledge nobody knows what your photo credentials are, if in fact you have any) against his? I have never claimed to be a photographic expert, but I know photograqphic experts and Costella is not one of them. A Photgraphic Expert (or even a good researcher) would have known why the MPI version of the Zfilm was not as sharp as the 1st generation copies that Life Magazine placed into print, but it seems that Costella was oblivious to this information. Even someone skilled in perspective or even someone who has studied drawing would have seen that Moorman's camera was above the tops of those motorcycles windshield in Mary's famous Polaroid, but not Costella. These are all indications in my view that Costella is not a Photographic expert nor even is he qualified to render opinions about photos because of his inability to read them properly. Bill Miller Please let us know who your photographic experts are, after all we'd like to give them the credit they so deserve. So folks, the above response is shorthand for, NOPE he doesn't want to compare credentials with John Costella. Why not get Gary's permission and start a thread about the MPI film...? I'm sure those folks are ready for more criticism... Better yet, get RGroden in here to talk about the Z-film, maybe his credentials [which I'd like to see in black and white] can pass muster.... Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] How do you know Costella is not a Photographic expert, are you willing to place your credentials (to the best of my knowledge nobody knows what your photo credentials are, if in fact you have any) against his? I have never claimed to be a photographic expert, but I know photograqphic experts and Costella is not one of them. A Photgraphic Expert (or even a good researcher) would have known why the MPI version of the Zfilm was not as sharp as the 1st generation copies that Life Magazine placed into print, but it seems that Costella was oblivious to this information. Even someone skilled in perspective or even someone who has studied drawing would have seen that Moorman's camera was above the tops of those motorcycles windshield in Mary's famous Polaroid, but not Costella. These are all indications in my view that Costella is not a Photographic expert nor even is he qualified to render opinions about photos because of his inability to read them properly. Bill Miller Please let us know who your photographic experts are, after all we'd like to give them the credit they so deserve. So folks, the above response is shorthand for, NOPE he doesn't want to compare credentials with John Costella. Why not get Gary's permission and start a thread about the MPI film...? I'm sure those folks are ready for more criticism... Better yet, get RGroden in here to talk about the Z-film, maybe his credentials [which I'd like to see in black and white] can pass muster.... Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was... You have the GUTS to comment on the Apollo shadow issue that both Costella and WHite claim is impossible? Come on Healy...stick it out there for once....or are you just plain chicken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 (edited) Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was... As I recall - Costella and friends thought that Jean Hill was also in the street and we know Jean straighten that blunder of White's out when she went on Black Op Radio and said that she had gotten back into the grass before the first shot was ever fired ... Besides, when you told this forum that you had not seen any evidence of alteration - you had already read Lifton's 'Pig on a Leash' in the Hoax book. Bill Miller Edited August 20, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] How do you know Costella is not a Photographic expert, are you willing to place your credentials (to the best of my knowledge nobody knows what your photo credentials are, if in fact you have any) against his? I have never claimed to be a photographic expert, but I know photograqphic experts and Costella is not one of them. A Photgraphic Expert (or even a good researcher) would have known why the MPI version of the Zfilm was not as sharp as the 1st generation copies that Life Magazine placed into print, but it seems that Costella was oblivious to this information. Even someone skilled in perspective or even someone who has studied drawing would have seen that Moorman's camera was above the tops of those motorcycles windshield in Mary's famous Polaroid, but not Costella. These are all indications in my view that Costella is not a Photographic expert nor even is he qualified to render opinions about photos because of his inability to read them properly. Bill Miller Please let us know who your photographic experts are, after all we'd like to give them the credit they so deserve. So folks, the above response is shorthand for, NOPE he doesn't want to compare credentials with John Costella. Why not get Gary's permission and start a thread about the MPI film...? I'm sure those folks are ready for more criticism... Better yet, get RGroden in here to talk about the Z-film, maybe his credentials [which I'd like to see in black and white] can pass muster.... Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was... You have the GUTS to comment on the Apollo shadow issue that both Costella and WHite claim is impossible? Come on Healy...stick it out there for once....or are you just plain chicken? what can I tell you Craigster, other than the simple fact-- Earth, Moon, it's STILL the same light source, the SUN! Shadows fall in one direction... Now if you have another light source to add to the mix, feel free informing us... Edited August 20, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) 'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] How do you know Costella is not a Photographic expert, are you willing to place your credentials (to the best of my knowledge nobody knows what your photo credentials are, if in fact you have any) against his? I have never claimed to be a photographic expert, but I know photograqphic experts and Costella is not one of them. A Photgraphic Expert (or even a good researcher) would have known why the MPI version of the Zfilm was not as sharp as the 1st generation copies that Life Magazine placed into print, but it seems that Costella was oblivious to this information. Even someone skilled in perspective or even someone who has studied drawing would have seen that Moorman's camera was above the tops of those motorcycles windshield in Mary's famous Polaroid, but not Costella. These are all indications in my view that Costella is not a Photographic expert nor even is he qualified to render opinions about photos because of his inability to read them properly. Bill Miller Please let us know who your photographic experts are, after all we'd like to give them the credit they so deserve. So folks, the above response is shorthand for, NOPE he doesn't want to compare credentials with John Costella. Why not get Gary's permission and start a thread about the MPI film...? I'm sure those folks are ready for more criticism... Better yet, get RGroden in here to talk about the Z-film, maybe his credentials [which I'd like to see in black and white] can pass muster.... Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was... You have the GUTS to comment on the Apollo shadow issue that both Costella and WHite claim is impossible? Come on Healy...stick it out there for once....or are you just plain chicken? what can I tell you Craigster, other than the simple fact-- Earth, Moon, it's STILL the same light source, the SUN! Shadows fall in one direction... Now if you have another light source to add to the mix, feel free informing us... Come on bow wow..spell it out...do you believe the shadow is possible AND natural or not? And yes..one light..the sun. Is it possible or not. On the record davie, show some BALLS for a change....agree with the igorant phd from down under and bozo White or deal with the facts and tell us all just how wrong they have it.... Quite stalling and pony up...for once actually BE a man.... And btw, for the record...no problem with this shadow AT ALL, easily repeted right here on earth in direct sunlight and only direct sunlight....and the shadows ALL fall the same direction..... Edited August 20, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was... As I recall - Costella and friends thought that Jean Hill was also in the street and we know Jean straighten that blunder of White's out when she went on Black Op Radio and said that she had gotten back into the grass before the first shot was ever fired ... Besides, when you told this forum that you had not seen any evidence of alteration - you had already read Lifton's 'Pig on a Leash' in the Hoax book. Bill Miller Me-oh-my, a comment about not verifying film alteration because I don't have access to evidence that being the Zapruder in-camera original? What kind of a moron you take me for, Your not THAT stupid are you? I'm beginning to think you live and die to say; "you had not seen any evidence of alteration" .... Really a weak Lone Nutter case if that's all you got.... perhaps the Tinkster should re-run Dealey Plaza film/photo boot camp? LMAO... Sorry, I've listened to Black Op Radio four times, David Lifton, you know the guy who told you to get lost and John Costella, who won't waste his time with you, Rich DellaRosa who threw you off his forum, and Doug Horne who doesn't even know you exist... but you can help out here... Who controls the Moorman 5 photo and if I wanted to interview Mary Moorman who do I have to call and how much will it cost me? Get back to me, maybe we can do lunch, hell, maybe I can put in a good word for you Black Op.... nah! 'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] How do you know Costella is not a Photographic expert, are you willing to place your credentials (to the best of my knowledge nobody knows what your photo credentials are, if in fact you have any) against his? I have never claimed to be a photographic expert, but I know photograqphic experts and Costella is not one of them. A Photgraphic Expert (or even a good researcher) would have known why the MPI version of the Zfilm was not as sharp as the 1st generation copies that Life Magazine placed into print, but it seems that Costella was oblivious to this information. Even someone skilled in perspective or even someone who has studied drawing would have seen that Moorman's camera was above the tops of those motorcycles windshield in Mary's famous Polaroid, but not Costella. These are all indications in my view that Costella is not a Photographic expert nor even is he qualified to render opinions about photos because of his inability to read them properly. Bill Miller Please let us know who your photographic experts are, after all we'd like to give them the credit they so deserve. So folks, the above response is shorthand for, NOPE he doesn't want to compare credentials with John Costella. Why not get Gary's permission and start a thread about the MPI film...? I'm sure those folks are ready for more criticism... Better yet, get RGroden in here to talk about the Z-film, maybe his credentials [which I'd like to see in black and white] can pass muster.... Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was... You have the GUTS to comment on the Apollo shadow issue that both Costella and WHite claim is impossible? Come on Healy...stick it out there for once....or are you just plain chicken? what can I tell you Craigster, other than the simple fact-- Earth, Moon, it's STILL the same light source, the SUN! Shadows fall in one direction... Now if you have another light source to add to the mix, feel free informing us... Come on bow wow..spell it out...do you believe the shadow is possible AND natural or not? And yes..one light..the sun. Is it possible or not. On the record davie, show some BALLS for a change....agree with the igorant phd from down under and bozo White or deal with the facts and tell us all just how wrong they have it.... Quite stalling and pony up...for once actually BE a man.... And btw, for the record...no problem with this shadow AT ALL, easily repeted right here on earth in direct sunlight and only direct sunlight....and the shadows ALL fall the same direction..... post the picture, Dim-Bulb! I'll take a look when I get back to town... some of us do remotes on the weekend, you know..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was... As I recall - Costella and friends thought that Jean Hill was also in the street and we know Jean straighten that blunder of White's out when she went on Black Op Radio and said that she had gotten back into the grass before the first shot was ever fired ... Besides, when you told this forum that you had not seen any evidence of alteration - you had already read Lifton's 'Pig on a Leash' in the Hoax book. Bill Miller Me-oh-my, a comment about not verifying film alteration because I don't have access to evidence that being the Zapruder in-camera original? What kind of a moron you take me for, Your not THAT stupid are you? I'm beginning to think you live and die to say; "you had not seen any evidence of alteration" .... Really a weak Lone Nutter case if that's all you got.... perhaps the Tinkster should re-run Dealey Plaza film/photo boot camp? LMAO... Sorry, I've listened to Black Op Radio four times, David Lifton, you know the guy who told you to get lost and John Costella, who won't waste his time with you, Rich DellaRosa who threw you off his forum, and Doug Horne who doesn't even know you exist... but you can help out here... Who controls the Moorman 5 photo and if I wanted to interview Mary Moorman who do I have to call and how much will it cost me? Get back to me, maybe we can do lunch, hell, maybe I can put in a good word for you Black Op.... nah! 'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] How do you know Costella is not a Photographic expert, are you willing to place your credentials (to the best of my knowledge nobody knows what your photo credentials are, if in fact you have any) against his? I have never claimed to be a photographic expert, but I know photograqphic experts and Costella is not one of them. A Photgraphic Expert (or even a good researcher) would have known why the MPI version of the Zfilm was not as sharp as the 1st generation copies that Life Magazine placed into print, but it seems that Costella was oblivious to this information. Even someone skilled in perspective or even someone who has studied drawing would have seen that Moorman's camera was above the tops of those motorcycles windshield in Mary's famous Polaroid, but not Costella. These are all indications in my view that Costella is not a Photographic expert nor even is he qualified to render opinions about photos because of his inability to read them properly. Bill Miller Please let us know who your photographic experts are, after all we'd like to give them the credit they so deserve. So folks, the above response is shorthand for, NOPE he doesn't want to compare credentials with John Costella. Why not get Gary's permission and start a thread about the MPI film...? I'm sure those folks are ready for more criticism... Better yet, get RGroden in here to talk about the Z-film, maybe his credentials [which I'd like to see in black and white] can pass muster.... Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was... You have the GUTS to comment on the Apollo shadow issue that both Costella and WHite claim is impossible? Come on Healy...stick it out there for once....or are you just plain chicken? what can I tell you Craigster, other than the simple fact-- Earth, Moon, it's STILL the same light source, the SUN! Shadows fall in one direction... Now if you have another light source to add to the mix, feel free informing us... Come on bow wow..spell it out...do you believe the shadow is possible AND natural or not? And yes..one light..the sun. Is it possible or not. On the record davie, show some BALLS for a change....agree with the igorant phd from down under and bozo White or deal with the facts and tell us all just how wrong they have it.... Quite stalling and pony up...for once actually BE a man.... And btw, for the record...no problem with this shadow AT ALL, easily repeted right here on earth in direct sunlight and only direct sunlight....and the shadows ALL fall the same direction..... post the picture, Dim-Bulb! I'll take a look when I get back to town... some of us do remotes on the weekend, you know..... The apollo image in question is posted above nutless.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was... As I recall - Costella and friends thought that Jean Hill was also in the street and we know Jean straighten that blunder of White's out when she went on Black Op Radio and said that she had gotten back into the grass before the first shot was ever fired ... Besides, when you told this forum that you had not seen any evidence of alteration - you had already read Lifton's 'Pig on a Leash' in the Hoax book. Bill Miller Me-oh-my, a comment about not verifying film alteration because I don't have access to evidence that being the Zapruder in-camera original? What kind of a moron you take me for, Your not THAT stupid are you? I'm beginning to think you live and die to say; "you had not seen any evidence of alteration" .... Really a weak Lone Nutter case if that's all you got.... perhaps the Tinkster should re-run Dealey Plaza film/photo boot camp? LMAO... Sorry, I've listened to Black Op Radio four times, David Lifton, you know the guy who told you to get lost and John Costella, who won't waste his time with you, Rich DellaRosa who threw you off his forum, and Doug Horne who doesn't even know you exist... but you can help out here... Who controls the Moorman 5 photo and if I wanted to interview Mary Moorman who do I have to call and how much will it cost me? Get back to me, maybe we can do lunch, hell, maybe I can put in a good word for you Black Op.... nah! 'Bill Miller' wrote: [...] How do you know Costella is not a Photographic expert, are you willing to place your credentials (to the best of my knowledge nobody knows what your photo credentials are, if in fact you have any) against his? I have never claimed to be a photographic expert, but I know photograqphic experts and Costella is not one of them. A Photgraphic Expert (or even a good researcher) would have known why the MPI version of the Zfilm was not as sharp as the 1st generation copies that Life Magazine placed into print, but it seems that Costella was oblivious to this information. Even someone skilled in perspective or even someone who has studied drawing would have seen that Moorman's camera was above the tops of those motorcycles windshield in Mary's famous Polaroid, but not Costella. These are all indications in my view that Costella is not a Photographic expert nor even is he qualified to render opinions about photos because of his inability to read them properly. Bill Miller Please let us know who your photographic experts are, after all we'd like to give them the credit they so deserve. So folks, the above response is shorthand for, NOPE he doesn't want to compare credentials with John Costella. Why not get Gary's permission and start a thread about the MPI film...? I'm sure those folks are ready for more criticism... Better yet, get RGroden in here to talk about the Z-film, maybe his credentials [which I'd like to see in black and white] can pass muster.... Maybe Mary Moorman will drop by and clarify her street/grass position? After reading Lifton's, Pig on a Leash, I'm not quite sure where she was... You have the GUTS to comment on the Apollo shadow issue that both Costella and WHite claim is impossible? Come on Healy...stick it out there for once....or are you just plain chicken? what can I tell you Craigster, other than the simple fact-- Earth, Moon, it's STILL the same light source, the SUN! Shadows fall in one direction... Now if you have another light source to add to the mix, feel free informing us... Come on bow wow..spell it out...do you believe the shadow is possible AND natural or not? And yes..one light..the sun. Is it possible or not. On the record davie, show some BALLS for a change....agree with the igorant phd from down under and bozo White or deal with the facts and tell us all just how wrong they have it.... Quite stalling and pony up...for once actually BE a man.... And btw, for the record...no problem with this shadow AT ALL, easily repeted right here on earth in direct sunlight and only direct sunlight....and the shadows ALL fall the same direction..... post the picture, Dim-Bulb! I'll take a look when I get back to town... some of us do remotes on the weekend, you know..... The apollo image in question is posted above nutless.... gimme a NASA image control number Dim-Bulb -- do ya know what that is? I want the source image... Why are you guys so easy? While your at it, gimme your monitor gamma setting, I don't want you to confuse apples with oranges... Edited August 20, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 20, 2006 Author Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) Guard dog barked...among other things.... "Oh, other than using *silk* how much of a expert do you need to be when dealing with a single lighting source called the SUN -- this isn't studio lighting 101, if Lamson can dish it out, he can take it. If this is the best you got... LOL bullxxxx... when it comes to experts in ANYTHING you'll gain notice when you produce a physicist to dispute John Costella findings...." Your "expert" Costella was a COMPLETE failure when he tried to make his claim at the off center shadow od Astronaut Armstrong was impossble. "Mr. Physics" was at a complete loss as to why it is perfectly NORMAL for such a shadow to exist in a single light (sun) situation. His vaulted physics degree did'nt serve him well in this instance, and all that was needed to deal with the question was a simple emperical test...taking a camea outside into the late afternoon sun and taking a picture. So please, give the "where is the physist from the other side" bullxxxx a rest. Why because none is needed. These are simple PHOTOGRAPHY AND LIGHTING questions and the chump from down under is ill equipped to deal with these issues. Of course your side has White...oh wait...another ignorant ct dupe...or you...oh wait...clueless...wanna try Fetzer? LOL! 3+ years and this is the best you manage? Verify the problems the Costella study made, have a Physicist endorse your position, we'll move on, should be a peice of cake, yes? If I remember correctly, John Costella was going to be the Lone Nutter's/Dealey Plaza photo historical record savior (who spent weeks courting him? then to be told by Costella, they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground) -- then lo and behold look what happened, Costella quote: "the Zapruder Film is a fraud...". THAT surprised even ME... So, whoops, no wonder why your pissed... psst, there are NO Elm Street lighting questions! Your expertise can remain in the studio... we don't need it! Is it ANY wonder why this case has languished... You have a VERY faulty memory bow wow.... No Elm street lighting problems? Surely you jest! Why finding "problems" with the lighting on Elm has become an epidemic due to the ignorant likes of White. Its been a real hoot puncturing this massive stupidity ! Costella HIMSELF verified the problems wiht his sign study...its impossible to take images from two different camera positions and alter them to make them appear to be from the same lens axis...yet his faulty study still stands both in print and on the web. Then he makes the really stupid claim that verticals in a photograph cannot change angle in a photograph and then he applies this the the LEANING Stemmons sign! Physist needed? No way! None of this stuff is rocket science and poor old Costella, after being puffed up by Fetzer and the zombies at the cult forum, fancies himself an expert on photography. Sadly for the zombies he is no where near an expert, not even witn his self professed moniker as an ..."expert in the properties of light...hell he can't understand how a simple shadow works and last I checked a shadow is a "property of light" Now lets put YOU in the spotlight bow wow... in YOUR professional opinion is this shadow possible? You need a physist to figure this one out or will a simple emperical test do the trick? Mr. Light volunteers to do A SIMPLE EMPIRICAL TEST for us! I look forward to it! It will be very educational to see how the sun casts shadows from multiple directions. And I look forward to seeing where his shadow is in the UNCROPPED FRAME when the sun is directly behind him. Wow...what a treat...an EMPIRICAL TEST from Mr. Light himself. It should be very educational! Jack Edited August 20, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 What are all these shadows anyway? On this airless low gravity thing called moon I'd imagine there would a lot of sand and rocks. Hitting it are other rocks big and small. The depression caused by such a hit would be shaped by the direction of the strike. A really big hit could throw up a lot of smaller rocks, perhaps from the big rock or in the ground from earlier strikes. Then these sprays would fall on a landscape already shaped by earlier strikes, sometimes piling sand up against other rocks already there etc etc. so there'd be a lot of planes and curves all over the place, creating contours that when viewed from one direction gives a view that can only be proprerly understood by taking that into account. Perhaps a stereo pair could make it easier? Is the thin thing (antenna?) pointing straight up or is it leaning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Robbins Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Guard dog barked...among other things.... "Oh, other than using *silk* how much of a expert do you need to be when dealing with a single lighting source called the SUN -- this isn't studio lighting 101, if Lamson can dish it out, he can take it. If this is the best you got... LOL bullxxxx... when it comes to experts in ANYTHING you'll gain notice when you produce a physicist to dispute John Costella findings...." Your "expert" Costella was a COMPLETE failure when he tried to make his claim at the off center shadow od Astronaut Armstrong was impossble. "Mr. Physics" was at a complete loss as to why it is perfectly NORMAL for such a shadow to exist in a single light (sun) situation. His vaulted physics degree did'nt serve him well in this instance, and all that was needed to deal with the question was a simple emperical test...taking a camea outside into the late afternoon sun and taking a picture. So please, give the "where is the physist from the other side" bullxxxx a rest. Why because none is needed. These are simple PHOTOGRAPHY AND LIGHTING questions and the chump from down under is ill equipped to deal with these issues. Of course your side has White...oh wait...another ignorant ct dupe...or you...oh wait...clueless...wanna try Fetzer? LOL! 3+ years and this is the best you manage? Verify the problems the Costella study made, have a Physicist endorse your position, we'll move on, should be a peice of cake, yes? If I remember correctly, John Costella was going to be the Lone Nutter's/Dealey Plaza photo historical record savior (who spent weeks courting him? then to be told by Costella, they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground) -- then lo and behold look what happened, Costella quote: "the Zapruder Film is a fraud...". THAT surprised even ME... So, whoops, no wonder why your pissed... psst, there are NO Elm Street lighting questions! Your expertise can remain in the studio... we don't need it! Is it ANY wonder why this case has languished... You have a VERY faulty memory bow wow.... No Elm street lighting problems? Surely you jest! Why finding "problems" with the lighting on Elm has become an epidemic due to the ignorant likes of White. Its been a real hoot puncturing this massive stupidity ! Costella HIMSELF verified the problems wiht his sign study...its impossible to take images from two different camera positions and alter them to make them appear to be from the same lens axis...yet his faulty study still stands both in print and on the web. Then he makes the really stupid claim that verticals in a photograph cannot change angle in a photograph and then he applies this the the LEANING Stemmons sign! Physist needed? No way! None of this stuff is rocket science and poor old Costella, after being puffed up by Fetzer and the zombies at the cult forum, fancies himself an expert on photography. Sadly for the zombies he is no where near an expert, not even witn his self professed moniker as an ..."expert in the properties of light...hell he can't understand how a simple shadow works and last I checked a shadow is a "property of light" Now lets put YOU in the spotlight bow wow... in YOUR professional opinion is this shadow possible? You need a physist to figure this one out or will a simple emperical test do the trick? Mr. Light volunteers to do A SIMPLE EMPIRICAL TEST for us! I look forward to it! It will be very educational to see how the sun casts shadows from multiple directions. And I look forward to seeing where his shadow is in the UNCROPPED FRAME when the sun is directly behind him. Wow...what a treat...an EMPIRICAL TEST from Mr. Light himself. It should be very educational! Jack I'm curious about the shadows near the bottom of the photo. They appear to be cast backwards...towards the photographer...in front of the small mounds which cast shadows in the opposite direction as well. ?? I am not an expert in anything...so I will wait for explanations. Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) Guard dog barked...among other things.... "Oh, other than using *silk* how much of a expert do you need to be when dealing with a single lighting source called the SUN -- this isn't studio lighting 101, if Lamson can dish it out, he can take it. If this is the best you got... LOL bullxxxx... when it comes to experts in ANYTHING you'll gain notice when you produce a physicist to dispute John Costella findings...." Your "expert" Costella was a COMPLETE failure when he tried to make his claim at the off center shadow od Astronaut Armstrong was impossble. "Mr. Physics" was at a complete loss as to why it is perfectly NORMAL for such a shadow to exist in a single light (sun) situation. His vaulted physics degree did'nt serve him well in this instance, and all that was needed to deal with the question was a simple emperical test...taking a camea outside into the late afternoon sun and taking a picture. So please, give the "where is the physist from the other side" bullxxxx a rest. Why because none is needed. These are simple PHOTOGRAPHY AND LIGHTING questions and the chump from down under is ill equipped to deal with these issues. Of course your side has White...oh wait...another ignorant ct dupe...or you...oh wait...clueless...wanna try Fetzer? LOL! 3+ years and this is the best you manage? Verify the problems the Costella study made, have a Physicist endorse your position, we'll move on, should be a peice of cake, yes? If I remember correctly, John Costella was going to be the Lone Nutter's/Dealey Plaza photo historical record savior (who spent weeks courting him? then to be told by Costella, they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground) -- then lo and behold look what happened, Costella quote: "the Zapruder Film is a fraud...". THAT surprised even ME... So, whoops, no wonder why your pissed... psst, there are NO Elm Street lighting questions! Your expertise can remain in the studio... we don't need it! Is it ANY wonder why this case has languished... You have a VERY faulty memory bow wow.... No Elm street lighting problems? Surely you jest! Why finding "problems" with the lighting on Elm has become an epidemic due to the ignorant likes of White. Its been a real hoot puncturing this massive stupidity ! Costella HIMSELF verified the problems wiht his sign study...its impossible to take images from two different camera positions and alter them to make them appear to be from the same lens axis...yet his faulty study still stands both in print and on the web. Then he makes the really stupid claim that verticals in a photograph cannot change angle in a photograph and then he applies this the the LEANING Stemmons sign! Physicists needed? No way! None of this stuff is rocket science and poor old Costella, after being puffed up by Fetzer and the zombies at the cult forum, fancies himself an expert on photography. Sadly for the zombies he is no where near an expert, not even witn his self professed moniker as an ..."expert in the properties of light...hell he can't understand how a simple shadow works and last I checked a shadow is a "property of light" Now lets put YOU in the spotlight bow wow... in YOUR professional opinion is this shadow possible? You need a Physicists to figure this one out or will a simple emperical test do the trick? Mr. Light volunteers to do A SIMPLE EMPIRICAL TEST for us! I look forward to it! It will be very educational to see how the sun casts shadows from multiple directions. And I look forward to seeing where his shadow is in the UNCROPPED FRAME when the sun is directly behind him. Wow...what a treat...an EMPIRICAL TEST from Mr. Light himself. It should be very educational! Jack No Jack, I've already DONE (as have many others) the emperical tests and I KNOW the resutls. You on the other hand along with the the "Physicists" in question have made ignorant claims that this shadow pattern is impossible and that the shadow of Armstrong cannot be at the corner of the frame. And as usual you have done so WITH NO SUPPORTING documentation or evidence as usual. Thats the PROBLEM with ALL of both your and Costellas work...you JUST MAKE CRAP UP and claim it as fact. So it YOUR turn do the testing and prove yourself correct. You do know how to use a camera...right? SHow us your abilities as a photographer and highlight just how smart your "Physicists" really is. We will all be waiting with GREAT interest. Oh and just so EVERYONE at home can try the test as well let me give you directions: Go out on any sunny day late in the afternoon when the sun is very low in the sky. Set your camera lens to a moderate wide angle lens setting. Stand so that the sun is directly at your back and aim your camera so that your shadow is in the center of the frame. Try and keep your camera near level, not pointing down too much by down enough so that your shadow shows. ( this should not be a problem since the late day light will create a very long shadow of your body.) Take a picture. This is how White and Costella say all photos must look when the sun is behind the photographer. Now lets prove them both wrong. Keeping your camera at the same level as the first photo, simply turn your head and the camera to the right until yor body shadow is at the left edge of the picture...take another picture. Congratulations..you have just proven a "photo expert" and a "Physicist" wrong! Example by another photographer... http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html Other examples of shadows: http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html http://www.clavius.org/shad30.html http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html How did we get from Bronson to the Moon...but I suspect that that was an intentional 'leap' to stop us from looking at Bronson. I suggest we all go back to Bronson and if people want to do the Moon do it on another thread or another website even better. Try to keep up lemming. The moon image is simply being used to show the folly of HEalys suggestion that this wonder boy Costella photo arguments needs to be countered by another Physist for the counter argument to have any value, which is of course bunk. Its also a wonderful chance to actuallly see Healy shuck and jive and avoid actually taking a stand. Besides the discussion of the Bronson slide was and is useless. Edited August 20, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...1-40-5961HR.jpg[/url]Oh and BTW I run my pc monitors at gamma 1.9 What are all these shadows anyway? On this airless low gravity thing called moon I'd imagine there would a lot of sand and rocks. Hitting it are other rocks big and small. The depression caused by such a hit would be shaped by the direction of the strike. A really big hit could throw up a lot of smaller rocks, perhaps from the big rock or in the ground from earlier strikes. Then these sprays would fall on a landscape already shaped by earlier strikes, sometimes piling sand up against other rocks already there etc etc. so there'd be a lot of planes and curves all over the place, creating contours that when viewed from one direction gives a view that can only be proprerly understood by taking that into account. Perhaps a stereo pair could make it easier? Is the thin thing (antenna?) pointing straight up or is it leaning? Why John, you seem to actually understand. Stereo pairs from the same location are available here: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html Scroll all the way down to ther start of the segment..AS11-40-5954 through AS11-40-5961 The thin thing is the handle of the Gold closeup camera and it IS angled as the photos above show. Edited August 20, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 I'm curious about the shadows near the bottom of the photo. They appear to be cast backwards...towards the photographer...in front of the small mounds which cast shadows in the opposite direction as well. ??I am not an expert in anything...so I will wait for explanations. Chuck You are seeing the craters with shadows INTO the depth of the craterfrom the front and then seeing the shadow created by the mound of soil at the back edge of the crater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Jack is right about the shadows in that shot. It has been theorized that the figure of the astronaut is a shadow of a large backlit cut out, with the camera off to its right......................................... Well, boys, anyone who FREAKS OUT when the possibility of NASA / Lunar photo falsification is mentioned, doesn't really understand the COld War US photoanalysis controls - and the censorship of all strategic images during the 1960s ........ 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