Kevin M. West Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Jack, this is just getting sad. It has been explained to you in great detail why you're wrong, let me do it yet again. The shadow of the photographer should not point to the bottom center of the image, in the real world the shadow of the photographer, assuming they are standing up straight, will be roughly parallel with the edge of the frame. Here's a very simple diagram to explain why: This is a top-down view Blue is the photographer Grey is his shadow Red is the FoV of the camera Green is where the bottom edge of the FoV intersects the ground Note that the shadow does not intersect the center of the bottom edge, it is offset. Here is what happens when you apply simple perspective from the photographer's point of view: Note that the perspective transform results in the shadow being nearly parallel to the edge of the frame, as expected, not pointing towards bottom center. Seriously, go take a picture yourself, it will take a lot less time than photoshopping one of your 'studies' together and you might actually learn something about photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 (edited) Oh good grief ... Not more silly looking diagrams ! Why don't we make this real simple for everybody concerned ?... Jack is right and you are also . When Jack made the claim that an astronot , or photographer could not stand next to his own shadow , that was correct if the photographer was facing directly forward and the camera was mounted to his chest ... but what Jack failed to take into consideration was that the astonot's ( in a few of the studies anyway ) were turned to the side , as evident by the shadow , with their elbows bent , and therefore were holding the camera ... That would allow for an off center shadow ... But probably not as off center as evident in some of those phony Apollo photos .. So the extreme degree of off centered shadows , could possibly be accounted for by cropping the image as well . So in this case, Jack is correct in theory , but didn't allow for the fact that the camera was removed from the chest mount and the astronot had turned his body . If Jack reads this and agrees with me , then I hope he will say so ... If not, then maybe all of you jerks will stop beating a dead horse and find something else to focus on , in your obsessive rantings . Edited May 14, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Sorry Duane, Jack was NOT right. The camera being chest level and centered does not change anything, the shadow will still be off-center and parallel to the edge of the frame unless they are aiming directly downsun. There is no cropping necessary. Jack is not right in theory, or in reality. Why don't either of you go take a picture and see for yourself? Are you afraid to find out you're wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 I should have waited for Jack to explain this ... He has simplified this so hopefully all of you will understand it now and then LET IT GO . I don't think Jack minds me posting this here ... I expect Lamson , Greer , and West to play a new game with this , but what else is new ? Editor's Note: This concise, well-presented conclusion must put into serious doubt the authenticity of these Apollo photographs. And then by implication, the authenticity of the entire Apollo photographic record – no doubt fulfilling the intentions of those whistle-blowers involved. We thank Dave Greer for highlighting that fact that the previous version of this study required clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 (edited) I should have waited for Jack to explain this ... He has simplified this so hopefully all of you will understand it now and then LET IT GO . I don't think Jack minds me posting this here ... I expect Lamson , Greer , and West to play a new game with this , but what else is new ? Editor's Note: This concise, well-presented conclusion must put into serious doubt the authenticity of these Apollo photographs. And then by implication, the authenticity of the entire Apollo photographic record – no doubt fulfilling the intentions of those whistle-blowers involved. We thank Dave Greer for highlighting that fact that the previous version of this study required clarification. No game playing Daman...just exact, emperical evidence to show the massive ignorance of both White and Percy. Stay tuned... It is nice to have all three of you on the record showing your ignorance....thank you so much. Edited May 15, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Hmmmm .... Let me see now ... Should I believe two very nice, intelligent , professional photographers , whom I happen to agree with about the phony Apollo photography , or a game playing , self serving , narcissistic , hateful creep , who worked for nasa on their ridiculous ALSJ ? You obviously have a real big horse in this race Craig ... Otherwise you wouldn't devote so much of your valuable time in trying to defuse the photographic hoax evidence with your despicable tactics ... Just because you make the claim that other professionals are ignorant , doesn't make it true .. In fact , coming from someone like you , it would be anything but true . I will send this thread onto David Percy , so he can defend himself here , if he chooses to do so ... My guess is though , is that he wouldn't even dirty his boots on a small potatoes photographer from Jump Off Place , Indiana . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 (edited) Hmmmm .... Let me see now ... Should I believe two very nice, intelligent , professional photographers , whom I happen to agree with about the phony Apollo photography , or a game playing , self serving , narcissistic , hateful creep , who worked for nasa on their ridiculous ALSJ ? You obviously have a real big horse in this race Craig ... Otherwise you wouldn't devote so much of your valuable time in trying to defuse the photographic hoax evidence with your despicable tactics ... Just because you make the claim that other professionals are ignorant , doesn't make it true .. In fact , coming from someone like you , it would be anything but true . I will send this thread onto David Percy , so he can defend himself here , if he chooses to do so ... My guess is though , is that he wouldn't even dirty his boots on a small potatoes photographer from Jump Off Place , Indiana . OH PLEASE GET PERCY HERE! He's the guy who ran away from the debate at his own website when the going got rough! Percy does not have the balls to debate in an open forum! As to you Duane, we all know for you its about belief, which is all you have considering your ignorance. The problem is this is NOT about belief, its about cold hard facts grounded in science. You are the perfect mark for hucksters like Percy.... I don't make claims Duane, I present uninpeachable emperical evidence...just like I have in the offset shadow case. WHite and Percy are trying to spin their way out of being wrong by posting red herrings. That will all be exposed very soon, along with White and Percy! So again...please get Percy here. Lets see if he can stand on his own two feet and debate in the open. I'm not holding my breath. Edited May 16, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 How many different ways can I prove Jack wrong. Let's try video this time. This one took me about 30 seconds with a camera and tape measure, I encourage everyone to try this at home. The tape measure is a perfectly straight line running directly under the camera, just like it was the shadow of the photographer. Being a straight line, you can't accuse anyone of bending or contorting to make the shadow appear different. It's on perfectly flat terrain (a table). The camera is never moved from it's position, only turned left & right slightly. But what do we see? The line remains roughly parallel to the edge of the photo, not pointing to bottom center as Jack thinks should happen. How many ways does his claim have to be shown to be wrong before he admits it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Hmmmm .... Let me see now ... Should I believe two very nice, intelligent , professional photographers , whom I happen to agree with about the phony Apollo photography , or a game playing , self serving , narcissistic , hateful creep , who worked for nasa on their ridiculous ALSJ ? You obviously have a real big horse in this race Craig ... Otherwise you wouldn't devote so much of your valuable time in trying to defuse the photographic hoax evidence with your despicable tactics ... Just because you make the claim that other professionals are ignorant , doesn't make it true .. In fact , coming from someone like you , it would be anything but true . I will send this thread onto David Percy , so he can defend himself here , if he chooses to do so ... My guess is though , is that he wouldn't even dirty his boots on a small potatoes photographer from Jump Off Place , Indiana . OH PLEASE GET PERCY HERE! He's the guy who ran away from the debate at his own website when the going got rough! Percy does not have the balls to debate in an open forum! As to you Duane, we all know for you its about belief, which is all you have considering your ignorance. The problem is this is NOT about belief, its about cold hard facts grounded in science. You are the perfect mark for hucksters like Percy.... I don't make claims Duane, I present uninpeachable emperical evidence...just like I have in the offset shadow case. WHite and Percy are trying to spin their way out of being wrong by posting red herrings. That will all be exposed very soon, along with White and Percy! So again...please get Percy here. Lets see if he can stand on his own two feet and debate in the open. I'm not holding my breath. Lamson ... You need to understand that not everyone enjoys debating closed minded , aggressive , hateful , rude , dishonest , people like you ... The real reason you get so nasty about all of this and treat conspiracy researchers like Jack White and David Percy with so little respect , is because men like them frighten you ... and the reason they frighten you is because they have toppled your little world of make believe and your little national pride fantasy of Americans ever having walked on the moon ... He is not a huckster and I am not ignorant .... and you character assassination of everyone you disagree with is quite pathetic . Oh , and Kevin ... Your little pitiful "phunkadelic" video proves nothing ... Jack is not wrong , you are and so is your pal Lamson . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Ah typical Duane, can't argue his position, so he just starts insulting people. What exactly is wrong with my video? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 I am arguing my position and your video proves nothing ... Or maybe I missed the off side astronot shadows in it ... Jack proved his point ... You and Lamson haven't ... Though I suspect we are all going to see some of his contortionist photos posted here very soon ! ... LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 (edited) Hmmmm .... Let me see now ... Should I believe two very nice, intelligent , professional photographers , whom I happen to agree with about the phony Apollo photography , or a game playing , self serving , narcissistic , hateful creep , who worked for nasa on their ridiculous ALSJ ? You obviously have a real big horse in this race Craig ... Otherwise you wouldn't devote so much of your valuable time in trying to defuse the photographic hoax evidence with your despicable tactics ... Just because you make the claim that other professionals are ignorant , doesn't make it true .. In fact , coming from someone like you , it would be anything but true . I will send this thread onto David Percy , so he can defend himself here , if he chooses to do so ... My guess is though , is that he wouldn't even dirty his boots on a small potatoes photographer from Jump Off Place , Indiana . OH PLEASE GET PERCY HERE! He's the guy who ran away from the debate at his own website when the going got rough! Percy does not have the balls to debate in an open forum! As to you Duane, we all know for you its about belief, which is all you have considering your ignorance. The problem is this is NOT about belief, its about cold hard facts grounded in science. You are the perfect mark for hucksters like Percy.... I don't make claims Duane, I present uninpeachable emperical evidence...just like I have in the offset shadow case. WHite and Percy are trying to spin their way out of being wrong by posting red herrings. That will all be exposed very soon, along with White and Percy! So again...please get Percy here. Lets see if he can stand on his own two feet and debate in the open. I'm not holding my breath. Lamson ... You need to understand that not everyone enjoys debating closed minded , aggressive , hateful , rude , dishonest , people like you ... The real reason you get so nasty about all of this and treat conspiracy researchers like Jack White and David Percy with so little respect , is because men like them frighten you ... and the reason they frighten you is because they have toppled your little world of make believe and your little national pride fantasy of Americans ever having walked on the moon ... He is not a huckster and I am not ignorant .... and you character assassination of everyone you disagree with is quite pathetic . Oh , and Kevin ... Your little pitiful "phunkadelic" video proves nothing ... Jack is not wrong , you are and so is your pal Lamson . You are kiddiing, right? I'm afraid of White and Percy? ROFLMAO! I have ZERO respect for them because they are not intellectually honest. Further more they show us massive ignorance in the subject of photography. The have only suceeded in convincing the ignorant to believe that which defies the laws and rules of science and photography. That you count yourself in this group is really a shame but it does prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are ignorant and a willing dupe. Simple facts Duane. I really fell sorry for you. And Duane, pointing out that someone has no clue and is simply wrong is not character assassination....grow up tuber. Percy, like White simply do not have the balls to debate in an open forum...why? Because they can't afford to be shown wrong! Edited May 16, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 I am arguing my position and your video proves nothing ... Or maybe I missed the off side astronot shadows in it ... Jack proved his point ... You and Lamson haven't ... Though I suspect we are all going to see some of his contortionist photos posted here very soon ! ... LOL So you can't tell me why my video is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Lamson ... You can pretend to laugh all you want , but yes ... you are very much afraid of men like Jack White and David Percy because not only do they have millons of people who agree with their photo analysis , they have both proven beyond any doubt , that the Apollo photography was faked . Kevin .... The only thing your video proved is that like Greer , you kow how to operate a video camera . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 So like I said, you can't explain why you think it's wrong? 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