Craig Lamson Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) 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 ........ Moron alert! Shanet goes where no sane person goes! Jack has no clue about the shadows in this shot and its now clear that Shanet has lost his mind! What a waste of higher education! Edited August 20, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 'Craig Lamson' wrote: 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 *********** bad link... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 'Craig Lamson' wrote: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 *********** bad link... apollo image number: AS11-40-5961 try the link again: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...1-40-5961HR.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 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! 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. ya dolt.... lets see the source image with a URL that works -- Take a stand on what you beef stick? I've shot more film and video for NASA than I suspect you have shot 4x5's in your entire career -- you need a different hobby champ, evidently you think I should give two xxxxs about moon shadows. So tell us ALL; how does "moon shadows" move the JFK case to resolution... Another two-bit Lone Neuter diversion.... Jack ties you up in so many circles I'm surprised you can find NORTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 (edited) ya dolt.... lets see the source image with a URL that works -- Take a stand on what you beef stick? I've shot more film and video for NASA than I suspect you have shot 4x5's in your entire career -- you need a different hobby champ, evidently you think I should give two xxxxs about moon shadows. So tell us ALL; how does "moon shadows" move the JFK case to resolution... Another two-bit Lone Neuter diversion.... Jack ties you up in so many circles I'm surprised you can find NORTH I've posted a second link that works, the image number and the actual image is posted in this thread THREE times. Now do you have the BALLS to actually deal with this and give your professional opinion or not? How does moon shadows move this case forward? A couple of ways. First it adds one more nail in the coffin of Jack White's disinformation and outright fraud. Second it puts you on the spot to actually DEAL with a claim directly and finally it proves once and for all that Costella has no clue about the "properties of light", is in no way an expert on optics and that a physicist is not required to debunk Costella's junk science. So you gonna hang your limp d__k out on the line or are you simply a chicken? What are you afraid of davie? Heres another link for you davie... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry25043 Edited August 21, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 22, 2006 Author Share Posted August 22, 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 Well...we still wait for Lampoon to post his EMPIRICAL study. Or is it missing in action, like the Kodak expert we were promised? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 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 Well...we still wait for Lampoon to post his EMPIRICAL study. Or is it missing in action, like the Kodak expert we were promised? Jack Uh Jack, its YOU who needs to produce the study, after all its YOU who made the claim its impossible for the armstrong shadow to be anywhere besides the center of the frame....So hop to it old man! Show us what you are made of. You can operate a camera...right? Oh I found an old test shot on this forum that trashes your stupid claim. I was just having some fun with a new 12mm lens for a 35mm digital camera and guess what my shadow is clear on the left side of the frame. Impossible you say...nonsense anyone can do it. How about you old man? Care to try? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry25043 BTW this link was in the LAST post for the reading impared like you. Added on edit: I just checked the meta data on this file and I was wrong about the focal length setting. The 12mm to 24mm zoom lens was set on 17mm not 12 mm. Edited August 22, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 (edited) Uh Jack, its YOU who needs to produce the study, after all its YOU who made the claim its impossible for the armstrong shadow to be anywhere besides the center of the frame....So hop to it old man! Show us what you are made of. You can operate a camera...right? Jack doesn't do studies ... he finds that his making up silly off-the-wall observations about things he cannot understand seems to take all of his energy. (The latest one being the 'plaza midget' observation) Bill Miller Edited August 22, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kennedy White Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Uh Jack, its YOU who needs to produce the study, after all its YOU who made the claim its impossible for the armstrong shadow to be anywhere besides the center of the frame....So hop to it old man! Show us what you are made of. You can operate a camera...right? Jack doesn't do studies ... he finds that his making up silly off-the-wall observations about things he cannot understand seems to take all of his energy. (The latest one being the 'plaza midget' observation) Bill Miller I actually saw Plaza Midget play at the Albert here in Winnipeg... kicking punk/ska thing... Keep the photo studies coming, Jack. I find them interesting and Bill clearly finds them entertaining... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I actually saw Plaza Midget play at the Albert here in Winnipeg... kicking punk/ska thing...Keep the photo studies coming, Jack. I find them interesting and Bill clearly finds them entertaining... Here is a fraction of the images I did in my study of the BDM. Go to Lancer at http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...ing_type=search Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 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..... Bump for davie....are you a man of your word? Ever going to deal with this or are you gutless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 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..... Bump for davie....are you a man of your word? Ever going to deal with this or are you gutless? Ah... what word might that be? Don't see where there's any Lone Neuter's I'm looking to impress with my truth? Certainly not slumming for new clients. Who do I have to impress with ANY word, hell this is the internet... If you can't convince me, the guy that can't prove the Z-film is altered, you got dog-pokey, champ.... nothing but white noise so deal with it.... Now, where's a functioning NASA link! NASA's inventory control number would be nice, special, SPECIAL NASA Apollo photo... if you cropped the image an overlay of the crop OVER the original -- we'll go from there, You don't have the time, be a man; have Miller do it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kennedy White Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I actually saw Plaza Midget play at the Albert here in Winnipeg... kicking punk/ska thing... Keep the photo studies coming, Jack. I find them interesting and Bill clearly finds them entertaining... Here is a fraction of the images I did in my study of the BDM. Go to Lancer at http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...ing_type=search Thanks, Bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Don't see where there's any Lone Neuter's I'm looking to impress with my truth? David, posting disjointed sentences that promotes paranoia without facts to support it is not truth. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Don't see where there's any Lone Neuter's I'm looking to impress with my truth? David, posting disjointed sentences that promotes paranoia without facts to support it is not truth. Bill Miller We should all see to it that the new GRATZ does not get the last word on every thread. 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