Dave Greer Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 The visor scratches shown in this latest photo do seem to be a match for what I thought to be footlights.... So I will accept this as proof that my theory was incorrect and concede the argument . Fair play to you Duane, I hope Jack is as forthcoming! Incidentally, have you managed to check out the link I posted re the configuration of the helmet visors? Once you understand this, the "Schmitt helmet" photo is quite easy to comprehend. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ulman Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Now this is why I still discuss the Apollo Missions. A question about a feature in a photo pops up. It causes us to start looking at other photos to rule in or out some obvious causes, discussion (hopefully polite), then comming to some logical and rational conclusion of what we are looking at. Then, to find actual proof of our findings! You can't ask for a better result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 Now this is why I still discuss the Apollo Missions.A question about a feature in a photo pops up. It causes us to start looking at other photos to rule in or out some obvious causes, discussion (hopefully polite), then comming to some logical and rational conclusion of what we are looking at. Then, to find actual proof of our findings! You can't ask for a better result. Duane, Thanks for conceding this point. However I think there is a bigger question that remains unanswered. Sure we know the scratches are scratcfhes, but do you understand why your theory of the "footlights" not lighitng the visor because the were pointed up and away was invalid? There is a basic physics point here and I want to make sure you understand it before we move on. It just might save us all a lot ot needless typing in the future. Who knows, given some time , you just might find that the photographic record of Apollo is actually real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 If you would like to explain the basic physics point involved that would be fine but I highly doubt your explanation would ever make me believe the Apollo photographic record to be real. Good grief...we have gone over WHY your foot lights "idea" was a failure. You were even shown an emperical example on the UM forum and through it all you simply denied that any of it was real. The answer to your problem is that light travels in a straight line....and that a light always casts a shadow. You need to do a bit of study Duane because you are in way over your head. And of course this little physics tidbit will not make you believe the Apollo photographic record is real....that is going to take an open mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 On the open-mindedness issue, I always try to be as objective as possible, but obviously I am coming from a particular stance - I believe 100% that Apollo happened, and will until I'm shown damning and conclusive evidence to the contrary. It's an historically and scientifically documented fact, mankinds greatest accomplishment, so why should I believe otherwise when there is no proof? I haven't studied the holocaust in any detail at all, but I'm willing to accept the historical version of events as being as pretty close to the actual truth, until someone provides very strong evidence to the contrary. Does this mean I'm close-minded and automatically believe what is spoon-fed to me? Another hoary chestnut that I drag up from time to time, but it's a good comparison to Apollo as being a technologiclqa achievement - bathyscaphe Trieste descending Challenger Deep, January 1960. Noone has ever been that deep since, and no vessel exists that could match it's achievement - yet this was achieved using 1950's technology. Very few photographs, no samples taken. Was it faked? I've neither seen nor heard of any evidence suggesting fakery, so I'm happy enough to accept it as having happened until shown otherwise. Apollo? A documented fact. Why doubt it happened, with no clear evidence? If there is plenty of - or even any - clear evidence, let's see it - because I've seen nothing yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 (edited) That was your physics lesson ? ... Light travels in a straight line and always casts a shadow ? ... and I thought you were going to teach me something I didn't already know ! LOL If the light sources HAD been footlights instead of visor scratches , they would not have cast any shadows on the subject being photographed for two simple reasons ... They were not pointed directly at him and any light they gave off that would have possibly created any shadows anywhere on the set would have been completely washed out by the much brighter overhead light source of the spotlight , which WAS pointed directly at the subject being photographed . Speaking of open minds ..... I hate to break this news to you , but usually those who go against the main steam official record of an accepted event are considered to be the open minded ones .... We just don't blindly accept the official version of something because it is presented to us as being true, by those in power .... Instead we question the official record of these alleged events , especially if the official version of them don't add up as to being true .. On the other hand , those who blindly accept the official version of these alleged events without question , are the one's who would be considered to be closed minded . Thank you for proving my point Duane. You simply have no clue about how light and shadow work and you CONTINUE to try and blow smoke up our butts with your uninformed opinion. Hate to break it to you but IF the light had struck the visor (and that is what have given the specular highlights you claimed were foot lights) they would have left shadows in all the areas that were in shadow from the main light source. And if they would have been footlights as you suggest, even if they WERE pointed directly way, for the speculars to appear on the visor, light rays would need to strike the visor...leaving shadows and highlights. No, you just failed ...again. If you want to talk about studio photography, photography in general and lighting, you are either going tha have to buy a clue or do some in depth study...you are out of your league. As for your open mindedness, you have none. It is you who is blindly following the ct mindset and accepting things you don't understand, simply because it fits your worldview and because you believe someone like Jack White, who is a worthless in regards to understanding the science of photography. I suggest you open your mind and perhaps you might actually learn something about the subject instead of just spewing smoke..... Edited November 18, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Dave - I agree. I tend to get testy when people say I "blindly accept" what is told to me. The truth is far different; I question things, and make up my own mind. I've spoken to aeronautical and aerospace engineers about Apollo. I've seen the developments from the technology. I've seen experts examine it in detail. I've looked up the facts and figures, looked up the formula to calculate various aspects (thrust, speed, fuel usage, etc), and calculated the figures myself. I've read technical reports. I've asked medical people about biomedical reports. I've investigated numerous aspects about it, and it always points to one conclusion - the landings were as recorded. As you are aware, I've examined the photographic claims of fakery and always found them wanting. I've contacted photographic experts about the claims. I've conducted experiments to verify photographic claims. I'm even shortly going to do an imagery analysis course (military). And yet people claim an open mind when they say they won't be taught anything, refuse to examine material, dismiss anyone who disagrees with them.... I can only hope such people don't vote and don't breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Dave ... If you would please keep an open mind about the conspiracy information , I will keep one about the evidence which proves that nasa landed six manned missions on the moon .. but I so far I have not seen definative evidence or proof of this really happening.I did not just fall for some conspiracy crap info because a TV program or a web site said that nasa never landed men on the moon , but rather spent several years studying both sides of this issue before deciding that the official Apollo record was just not true in many respects ... and this is what I joined this forum to discuss .... But because I believe this , it does not mean that I'm ignorant , uninformed , or closed minded at all .... Millions of very well educated and informed people all over the globe happen to believe the same thing that I do .... That Apollo was a hoax . Mr. Lamson and Mr. Burton ... Once again neither one of you seem to be able to post a reply to me that isn't filled with your typical dose of insults ... "I can only hope such people don't vote and don't breed" ... I could say the same for you but I won't stoop that low Mr. Burton .. "I suggest you open your mind and perhaps you might actually learn something about the subject instead of just spewing smoke....." ... Yes , and I might suggest the same of you Mr. Lamson. For two men who claim to be so educated and intelligent , I find it a shame that you still continue to conduct yourselves like a couple of schoolyard bullies here , when confronted with opinions you happen to disagree with . Like I stated before in one of my posts , if any of you who defend Apollo can show me any real technical proof that nasa landed six manned missions on the moon 37 years ago , or that the Apollo photographic record is real , then I will gladly change my mind about Apollo being a staged event and a scam .... But for some strange reason every time I request that of any of the nasa defenders , all they have to offer in return is that it's my job to prove that Apollo was a hoax , and not their job to prove that it wasn't ... And so the dance goes on and on and on ... Duane, as long as you continue to spew uninformed opinion that FLYS DIRECTLY IN THE FACE OF EMPERICALLY PROVEN FACT you will continue to be treated like a crackpot. Your postings continue to be nothing more than than smoke. So go ahead and continue to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that the facts are not real...the only one who is being hurt by this childish tactic is you...as you continue to wallow in ignorance. Oh and btw, if you make a claim of fakery, ITS YOUR JOB TO PROVE THE POINT...and your "I believe I'm right" is not proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 'Evan Burton' wrote: Dave - I agree. I tend to get testy when people say I "blindly accept" what is told to me. The truth is far different; I question things, and make up my own mind. I've spoken to aeronautical and aerospace engineers about Apollo. I've seen the developments from the technology. I've seen experts examine it in detail. I've looked up the facts and figures, looked up the formula to calculate various aspects (thrust, speed, fuel usage, etc), and calculated the figures myself. I've read technical reports. I've asked medical people about biomedical reports. I've investigated numerous aspects about it, and it always points to one conclusion - the landings were as recorded. dgh: by the looks of it, you've had a few questions about the Apollo project? Comfort zones are just that, COMFORT ZONES, eh As you are aware, I've examined the photographic claims of fakery and always found them wanting. I've contacted photographic experts about the claims. I've conducted experiments to verify photographic claims. I'm even shortly going to do an imagery analysis course (military). And yet people claim an open mind when they say they won't be taught anything, refuse to examine material, dismiss anyone who disagrees with them.... I can only hope such people don't vote and don't breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 (edited) David G, I'm not quite sure about the point you are making. Do I have doubts? No. You must, however, examine the other side of the coin to ensure - as you say - that you are not just staying within the comfort zone. When that examination proves claims to be in error - time after time - while the claims by NASA et al DO withstand scrutiny, you can be confident of historical fact. Duane, As Craig says - "make your point". Detail what YOU believe is evidence of fakery. I can make claims but without at least some evidence to support those claims, they are nothing more than uninformed opinion. Demonstrate your "...several years of studying both sides of the issue..." by showing WHY your view is valid. Edited November 18, 2006 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 "make your point". Detail what YOU believe is evidence of fakery."I plan to do just that when I have a bit more time ... and hopefully we will be able to have discussions which won't continue with the typical insults which have already been directed to me . I haven't seen any undeserved insults, but anyway - thank you. I look forward to seeing your claims. 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