Len Colby Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 (edited) "I would post my analysis of the photo, but I can no longer post images here because my Mac is too old for the new software." When are you going to stop using that same excuse Jack? The very simple process for posting images from free photo hosting sites like Photobucket ( http://photobucket.com/ ), Village Photos (http://villagephotos.com/) and Yahoo Photos etc has been explained to you more than once. 1) Open an account (click on one the links above and fill in the form) 2) Upload the photos you want to post (there are dozens of photo hosting sites I can’t believe none are compatible with your old Mac. 3) Copy the image’s url to your message (most if not all hosts provide the url) 4) Put image tags [img*],[/img] on either side of the url – i.e. [img*]http://imageurl.com[/img] * At most photo hosting sites steps 3 and 4 are simplified because all you have to do is click on a button labeled “IMG Code” and it copies the tags and url to you clip board and all you have to do is paste it into your message. One more thing Jack, when are you going to address the challenge I put to you on page 2 of this thread? Oh one more, almost forgot, why are you asking Dave to do things like photogragh his feet the we don't see in the Apollo photos in question? * I added the asterisks to image tags otherwise they would not show up when actually doing this omit it i.e. the 1st tag should look like this not like this [img*]. The same process can be used for online images. Normally the img tags can be generated clicking on the "add image button" Edited February 3, 2007 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 Jack - have you had a chance to check out this photo yet? And what of your other claims? url=http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.greer70/apollo/shadows/DSCF1487.JPG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 On a similar note Jack, if I’m not mistaken, still stands by his claim that converging shadows are signs of multiple light sources because as his reasoning goes a single light source should produce only parallel shadows. Thus he claims moon photos with converging shadows must really have been shot in studios with multiple light sources because the sun of course is a single light source. Though it has repeatedly been explained to him that this would only be true if the objects themselves are parallel and the surface perfectly flat and he has been shown numerous sunlit photos with converging shadows refuses to admit error.As has been pointed out by someone else (can’t remember who or I’d give him/her credit) if the photos had been shot in a studio with more than one light we would see multiple shadows, one for each light, for each object. But perhaps Jack with his years of experience in the studio knows of a way to set up multiple lights so that would produce single converging shadows. Perhaps this could be done with very carefully placed spot lights but doing so would take a good deal of effort (i.e. would have to have been done intentionally – maybe it was the whistleblowers!) and probably wouldn’t lead to an evenly lit set. Source: http://artis.imag.fr/Research/RealTimeShadows/ So I have a challenge for Jack, produce shots similar to the Apollo ones he objects to show converging shadows but with only one shadow per object on an evenly lit set. I’ll take his failure to do so as a tact admission on his part he is unable to do so. The “I can’t post images” excuse won’t cut it because the simple procedure of posting images from free 3rd party photo hosts like photobucket.com has been explained to him several times already. Still waiting for a reply Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 8, 2007 Author Share Posted February 8, 2007 Jack Are you wlling to defend your studies by answering some of the rebuttals here? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 (edited) In Jack White's Aulius study as shown in the first post in this thread he states: No Photographer can stand beside his shadow! The ONLY apollo photo that correctly depicts the shadow (shows a picture with a photographers shadow in the center of the frame) Correct: When light is behind photographer, his shaodw MUST GO to the bottom center where his feet are! IT'S THE LAW! The laws of physics, ananomy, and common sense say that a persons feet are generally under the head;the camera is centered under the head. The camera must be directly above the feet. When the light is behind the photographer, his shadow must go to his feet, not beside him! (Jack then shows a number of Apollo photos which show the shadow of the photographer atr either side of the frame...not in the center, whcih he claims makes these photos faked do to the explaination he gives above) However emperical evidence says otherwise. Jack, it is time to admit "dafeet". Please do the honorable thing and admit you are wrong in this case and remove your flawed study from the Aulis web and replace it with your admission of being wrong. These photos were taken at Noon when the sun was high so that the entire shadow from my feet could be shown. The shadows were placed on the left, center and right by simply aiming the camera in that direction. What this study proves is that the shadow of the photographer CAN go directly to this feet and NOT be positioned in the center of the frame, as Jack White wrongly insists must be the case. Photos were taken with a Canon 5D, full frame 35mm format digital camera with a Sigma 12mm to 24mm zoom lens at 12mm. Camera original RAW format files are available. As always, don't take my word for this, simply do the test yourself. Edited February 11, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 "Photos were taken with a Canon 5D, full frame 35mm format digital camera with a Sigma 12mm to 24mm zoom lens at 12mm. " Well that explains the mystery then ! You took your photographs with a modern , state of the art , Canon 5D full frame digital camera with a Sigma 12mm to 24mm zoom lens at 12mm , outside on planet Earth . The Apollo astronots took their photos with 38 year old Hassleblad chest mounted no view finder not enough F stops clumsy ancient cameras, inside on moon sets ! But here's an even bigger mystery than the mysterious off center astro-actor's shadows .... How did Elvis get on the moon set with the Apollo astronauts gone wild, when he was suppossed to be making that "Girls Gone Wild " movie on the stage set next door ? (borrowed from one of the game players on the UM forum ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 In Jack White's Aulius study as shown in the first post in this thread he states:No Photographer can stand beside his shadow! The ONLY apollo photo that correctly depicts the shadow (shows a picture with a photographers shadow in the center of the frame) Correct: When light is behind photographer, his shaodw MUST GO to the bottom center where his feet are! IT'S THE LAW! The laws of physics, ananomy, and common sense say that a persons feet are generally under the head;the camera is centered under the head. The camera must be directly above the feet. When the light is behind the photographer, his shadow must go to his feet, not beside him! (Jack then shows a number of Apollo photos which show the shadow of the photographer atr either side of the frame...not in the center, whcih he claims makes these photos faked do to the explaination he gives above) However emperical evidence says otherwise. Jack, it is time to admit "dafeet". Please do the honorable thing and admit you are wrong in this case and remove your flawed study from the Aulis web and replace it with your admission of being wrong. These photos were taken at Noon when the sun was high so that the entire shadow from my feet could be shown. The shadows were placed on the left, center and right by simply aiming the camera in that direction. What this study proves is that the shadow of the photographer CAN go directly to this feet and NOT be positioned in the center of the frame, as Jack White wrongly insists must be the case. Photos were taken with a Canon 5D, full frame 35mm format digital camera with a Sigma 12mm to 24mm zoom lens at 12mm. Camera original RAW format files are available. As always, don't take my word for this, simply do the test yourself. Lamson did not follow instructions. He did not include his FEET in the photos. He cropped the images using only the top portion of the shadow of his body. Drawing a line in the direction of the shadow so it is to one side or the other reveals that all of his photos shows that if the feet were included they would go to the center bottom. All shadows of the photographer necessarily lead to his feet, and cropping tricks to fool the unaware is a foolish trick. CROPPING takes place in the VIEWFINDER as the photographer chooses his subject, and all of Lamson's photos were selectively CROPPED to mislead. If he can repeat his experiment with his feet not cropped out, he can do miracles. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 In Jack White's Aulius study as shown in the first post in this thread he states:No Photographer can stand beside his shadow! The ONLY apollo photo that correctly depicts the shadow (shows a picture with a photographers shadow in the center of the frame) Correct: When light is behind photographer, his shaodw MUST GO to the bottom center where his feet are! IT'S THE LAW! The laws of physics, ananomy, and common sense say that a persons feet are generally under the head;the camera is centered under the head. The camera must be directly above the feet. When the light is behind the photographer, his shadow must go to his feet, not beside him! (Jack then shows a number of Apollo photos which show the shadow of the photographer atr either side of the frame...not in the center, whcih he claims makes these photos faked do to the explaination he gives above) However emperical evidence says otherwise. Jack, it is time to admit "dafeet". Please do the honorable thing and admit you are wrong in this case and remove your flawed study from the Aulis web and replace it with your admission of being wrong. These photos were taken at Noon when the sun was high so that the entire shadow from my feet could be shown. The shadows were placed on the left, center and right by simply aiming the camera in that direction. What this study proves is that the shadow of the photographer CAN go directly to this feet and NOT be positioned in the center of the frame, as Jack White wrongly insists must be the case. Photos were taken with a Canon 5D, full frame 35mm format digital camera with a Sigma 12mm to 24mm zoom lens at 12mm. Camera original RAW format files are available. As always, don't take my word for this, simply do the test yourself. Lamson did not follow instructions. He did not include his FEET in the photos. He cropped the images using only the top portion of the shadow of his body. Drawing a line in the direction of the shadow so it is to one side or the other reveals that all of his photos shows that if the feet were included they would go to the center bottom. All shadows of the photographer necessarily lead to his feet, and cropping tricks to fool the unaware is a foolish trick. CROPPING takes place in the VIEWFINDER as the photographer chooses his subject, and all of Lamson's photos were selectively CROPPED to mislead. If he can repeat his experiment with his feet not cropped out, he can do miracles. Jack Wrong again Jack. In the series of images that show my entire shadow, THEY ALSO SHOW MY LOWER LEGS, AND MY FEET. You did a pretty poor job of inspecting the photography. So, I guess I CAN do miracles since my feet ARE included. I've done nothing to mislead anyone. Jack is the person who is failing in his attempt to mislead. I've simply taken pictures that Jack White, self proclaimed photo expert, says are impossible. Anyone can do just as I have. This is called framing the picture. And as such we can see that the Apollo photographs White claims are impossible...are not. They are EASY to recreate and totally possible. The bottom line here is that Jack White does not know what he is talking about and is making false claims that have been proven wrong with emperical evidence. Give it up Jack. How long are you going to try and spin your way out of this mistake. Be a man of honor and admit your mistake. P.S. I've lightened the test image so that you can see my lower legs, in blue jeans and my dark brown loafers on my feet. Please recant your false claim that I cropped out my feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 (edited) "Photos were taken with a Canon 5D, full frame 35mm format digital camera with a Sigma 12mm to 24mm zoom lens at 12mm. "Well that explains the mystery then ! You took your photographs with a modern , state of the art , Canon 5D full frame digital camera with a Sigma 12mm to 24mm zoom lens at 12mm , outside on planet Earth . The Apollo astronots took their photos with 38 year old Hassleblad chest mounted no view finder not enough F stops clumsy ancient cameras, inside on moon sets ! But here's an even bigger mystery than the mysterious off center astro-actor's shadows .... How did Elvis get on the moon set with the Apollo astronauts gone wild, when he was suppossed to be making that "Girls Gone Wild " movie on the stage set next door ? (borrowed from one of the game players on the UM forum ) Just to correct Duanes nonsense: The Hasselblad V series cameras are still offered by Victor Hasselblad today. They are a marvel of simplicity and engineering. I own three of them. http://www.hasselblad.com/products/v-system.aspx Next the 60mm lens used on the Lunar Hasselblads had an f-stop range of 5.6 to 22, more than enough of an f-stop range. Many current lenses have the exact same range. Finally the Hasselblad cameras are anything but clumsy. They are simple to the extreme. The focus, f-stop and shutter speed are all set by adjusting rings on the lens barrel. The Modified lunar ELM camera advanced the film with a motor, and film magazines could be changed by simply moving a singe realse button, just like today. Also the leses were modified to add easy to grasp levers to the controls. All in all a very easy camera to operate. Edited February 12, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 12, 2007 Author Share Posted February 12, 2007 (edited) In Jack White's Aulius study as shown in the first post in this thread he states:No Photographer can stand beside his shadow! The ONLY apollo photo that correctly depicts the shadow (shows a picture with a photographers shadow in the center of the frame) Correct: When light is behind photographer, his shaodw MUST GO to the bottom center where his feet are! IT'S THE LAW! The laws of physics, ananomy, and common sense say that a persons feet are generally under the head;the camera is centered under the head. The camera must be directly above the feet. When the light is behind the photographer, his shadow must go to his feet, not beside him! (Jack then shows a number of Apollo photos which show the shadow of the photographer atr either side of the frame...not in the center, whcih he claims makes these photos faked do to the explaination he gives above) However emperical evidence says otherwise. Jack, it is time to admit "dafeet". Please do the honorable thing and admit you are wrong in this case and remove your flawed study from the Aulis web and replace it with your admission of being wrong. These photos were taken at Noon when the sun was high so that the entire shadow from my feet could be shown. The shadows were placed on the left, center and right by simply aiming the camera in that direction. What this study proves is that the shadow of the photographer CAN go directly to this feet and NOT be positioned in the center of the frame, as Jack White wrongly insists must be the case. Photos were taken with a Canon 5D, full frame 35mm format digital camera with a Sigma 12mm to 24mm zoom lens at 12mm. Camera original RAW format files are available. As always, don't take my word for this, simply do the test yourself. Lamson did not follow instructions. He did not include his FEET in the photos. He cropped the images using only the top portion of the shadow of his body. Drawing a line in the direction of the shadow so it is to one side or the other reveals that all of his photos shows that if the feet were included they would go to the center bottom. All shadows of the photographer necessarily lead to his feet, and cropping tricks to fool the unaware is a foolish trick. CROPPING takes place in the VIEWFINDER as the photographer chooses his subject, and all of Lamson's photos were selectively CROPPED to mislead. If he can repeat his experiment with his feet not cropped out, he can do miracles. Jack Well, I can see his feet in those photos. Why you asked for susch a photo I still don't know, since none of the Apollo photos in your study showed the astronauts feet. However, Craig duly obliged and now you're claiming the feet aren't there? Plenty of evidence has been presented by myself and Craig refuting your assertion re where the shadow of an astronaut should be - how about that retraction you promised? Then we can talk about the other photos with shadows in apparently different directions. Edited February 12, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 (edited) In Jack White's Aulius study as shown in the first post in this thread he states:No Photographer can stand beside his shadow! The ONLY apollo photo that correctly depicts the shadow (shows a picture with a photographers shadow in the center of the frame) Correct: When light is behind photographer, his shaodw MUST GO to the bottom center where his feet are! IT'S THE LAW! The laws of physics, ananomy, and common sense say that a persons feet are generally under the head;the camera is centered under the head. The camera must be directly above the feet. When the light is behind the photographer, his shadow must go to his feet, not beside him! (Jack then shows a number of Apollo photos which show the shadow of the photographer atr either side of the frame...not in the center, whcih he claims makes these photos faked do to the explaination he gives above) However emperical evidence says otherwise. Jack, it is time to admit "dafeet". Please do the honorable thing and admit you are wrong in this case and remove your flawed study from the Aulis web and replace it with your admission of being wrong. These photos were taken at Noon when the sun was high so that the entire shadow from my feet could be shown. The shadows were placed on the left, center and right by simply aiming the camera in that direction. What this study proves is that the shadow of the photographer CAN go directly to this feet and NOT be positioned in the center of the frame, as Jack White wrongly insists must be the case. Photos were taken with a Canon 5D, full frame 35mm format digital camera with a Sigma 12mm to 24mm zoom lens at 12mm. Camera original RAW format files are available. As always, don't take my word for this, simply do the test yourself. Lamson did not follow instructions. He did not include his FEET in the photos. He cropped the images using only the top portion of the shadow of his body. Drawing a line in the direction of the shadow so it is to one side or the other reveals that all of his photos shows that if the feet were included they would go to the center bottom. All shadows of the photographer necessarily lead to his feet, and cropping tricks to fool the unaware is a foolish trick. CROPPING takes place in the VIEWFINDER as the photographer chooses his subject, and all of Lamson's photos were selectively CROPPED to mislead. If he can repeat his experiment with his feet not cropped out, he can do miracles. Jack Well, I can see his feet in those photos. Why you asked for susch a photo I still don't know, since none of the Apollo photos in your study showed the astronauts feet. However, Craig duly obliged and now you're claiming the feet aren't there? Plenty of evidence has been presented by myself and Craig refuting your assertion re where the shadow of an astronaut should be - how about that retraction you promised? Then we can talk about the other photos with shadows in apparently different directions. It seems Jack does not understand anything about this at all. He posted this upthread. His "understanding" is quite faulty as the emperical photographic evidence has shown. Jack, please correct your statements and remove your claim that I "cropped" the images I posted. "My study refers, of course, to UNCROPPED images. Anyone can CROP an image to place the shadow of the photographer to one side. If the photographer is standing erect and the camera is above his feet, then any photographer's SHADOW, by the LAWS OF PERSPECTIVE, must always POINT TO THE CENTER BOTTOM OF THE UNCROPPED IMAGE, leading directly to his FEET. If not, the image has been cropped from a full image in which the shadow points correctly. It is the direction of the shadow which matters, not the location within the image. A photographer CANNOT STAND BESIDE HIS SHADOW unless the direction of the shadow leads to his feet. His feet cannot be anywhere except the bottom center of the image. A very simple principle to understand. Jack" Edited February 12, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 (edited) deleted dupe post Edited February 12, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 (edited) Nice trick lamson ... You TWISTED and BENT your body around to get your shadow off to the side of these pictures ... The apollo astronots did not do these contortions but were rather standing perfectly erect and facing forward , yet their shadows are way to the side of some of the phony Apollo photos ... When you are standing straight , your shadow is in the CENTER of your photo ! And you have the nerve to call Jack deceptive ? .... Pretty sneaky stuff their mr. professional photographer . Edited February 14, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Well, let's have a look at Jack's claim: We have a slight problem in that none of the images are identified by number; with so many posted like this it might be understandable. Even so, if you want to refer to a particular image, please remember to identify that image so others can examine it independently. We don't know if any of the images have been cropped at all, so we'll assume that they have not been unless we can demonstrate otherwise. BTW, cropping is not indicative of anything wrong in general; it's just that when dealing with these matters you should note if you have done so. In some cases, cropping DOES alter the interpretation of the image; it is particularly important in these cases to annotate that the image has been cropped in order to avoid giving a false impression. Let's start using the image on the top right-hand side of the analysis. This image is AS12-46-6783. Duane has said that the astronauts were "...standing perfectly erect and facing forward...". If we look at this image (6783), we see that the shadow shows the astronaut taking the image (Pete Conrad) has the right arm showing on the right-hand side of the shadow, the helmet shadow twisted to the right, and the PLSS backpack appearing to the left of the shadow. This is pretty convincing evidence that he was twisting slightly to the right - and thus explains why his shadow is to the left of the image. The image immediately underneath (far right, second row) is AS12-46-6785, taken shortly after the image above. Once more, we can see the shadow displaying that the photographer (Conrad) had twisted his body slightly to the right (note how the shadow of the legs are parallel and the shadow of the torso shows movement to the right). The image immediately under that (far right, third row) is AS12-46-6789, taken just after the previously mentioned images. Here we cannot judge the true orientation of the body, but once again we can see the shadows of the right arm and the hoses of the EMU suit. You can also see the shadow around the legs sloping back toward the centre of the image. I have to get to sleep now, but have a close look at the other images Jack has presented and determine for yourself if they indicate a twisting of the body or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 Nice trick lamson ... You TWISTED and BENT your body around to get your shadow off to the side of these pictures ... The apollo astronots did not do these contortions but were rather standing perfectly erect and facing forward , yet their shadows are way to the side of some of the phony Apollo photos ... When you are standing straight , your shadow is in the CENTER of your photo ! And you have the nerve to call Jack deceptive ? .... Pretty sneaky stuff their mr. professional photographer . Duane Jack was asking for something that he doesn't even show in his study - a photograph of the photographer's feet. His claim was that any of the Apollo photos where the astronauts shadow didn't fall to the bottom centre must be faked. I offered evidence to the contrary in several UNCROPPED photos, incuding the following two: Shadow structure quite similar to this one in Jack's study: AS11/40/5961 The bottom line is, ANYONE with an inexpensive camera can very easily reproduce these photos for themselves, regardless of whether they believe you, me, Jack, Craig, Evan, or anyone else. Given that it is so simple to recreate the effect Jack is saying is impossible, try it for yourself if you own or can borrow a digital camera. 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