Duane Daman Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) Why do you say that I think wrong ? ... I've said all along that multiple light sources were used on the moon sets . You're the one that admitted that there are multiple light sources and multiple shadows in the Apollo photographs . But they're not caused by the open blue sky , because nasa blacked out the open blue sky from all of their phony photos and blacked out the moon set ceilings too . So that leaves stage lights and a real big spotlight causing the multile light sources and MULTIPLE SHADOWS ! Aren't you the one who explained how there were no multiple shadows in the Apollo photos when we were discussing the possible use of footlights on the set ? ... You made the claim that if extra stage lighting had been used , then we would see multiple shadows in the Apollo photos , and there weren't any .. but now you are claiming that we DO see multiple light sources and shadows in the Apollo photos .... So which is it ? .... It's OBVIOUS that the Apollo photos have multiple light sources and multiple shadows ... but both Neville Jones and Jack White explained to you that a good photographer could minimize those shadows using the proper balance of lighting . Edited February 21, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Why do you say that I think wrong ? ... I've said all along that multiple light sources were used on the moon sets .You're the one that admitted that there are multiple light sources and multiple shadows in the Apollo photographs . But they're not caused by the open blue sky , because nasa blacked out the open blue sky from all of their phony photos and blacked out the moon set ceilings too . So that leaves stage lights and a real big spotlight causing the multile light sources and MULTIPLE SHADOWS ! Aren't you the one who explained how there were no multiple shadows in the Apollo photos when we were discussing the possible use of footlights on the set ? ... You made the claim that if extra stage lighting had been used , then we would see multiple shadows in the Apollo photos , and there weren't any .. but now you are claiming that we DO see multiple light sources and shadows in the Apollo photos .... So which is it ? .... It's OBVIOUS that the Apollo photos have multiple light sources and multiple shadows ... but both Neville Jones and Jack White explained to you that a good photographer could minimize those shadows using the proper balance of lighting . Yes you have said that there were multiple light sources , but everytime you have made that claim no one can find any evidence of them ACTUALLY LIGHTING ANYTHING. And yes I did say there were NO multiple shadows in the Apollo photos IN QUESTION being caused by your fantasy "footlights...because there were none. And we DO see evidence of shadows from the lunar surface etc. in the Apollo images...which is a very different case than "fantasy footlights" Not that I think you could understand the difference. So now its NASA BLACKED OUT THE BLUE SKY? How many stories do you have Duane? Sheesh. I guess you simply can't do any better with the knowlege you have to work with. Tell you what, why not show us some EXAMPLES of "stage lights" and a "really big spotlight" (oh wait, in another thread you claimed it was just a single big spotlight just a few feet above the "moonset" that illuminated the entire thing...and now you want to add "stagelights"...) causing the multiple shadows and we can see if your knowlege of lighting is worth anything. Your memory fails you again. I was the one who stated multiple shadows could only be minimized. White claimed you could ELIMINATE double shadows which I have shown with emperical evidence to be wrong. Jones claimed the same and his claim was also tossed into the diustbin as well. White can't refute my evidence and neither can you. Got anyting elso left Duane you are batting zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 (edited) Craig .... I don't believe you have thrown anyone's photographic evidence in the dust bin ... Jack's explanations make sense to me and so do Jones' .... Maybe this has more to do with perception than photographic shop talk . One of the main reasons I have always believed the Apollo photographs to be fake is the fact that there is no depth perception in any of them ... and what I mean by that , is that the allegedly huge mountains which are suppossedly many miles away from the subject being photographed , look like they are only a few yards away from the foreground and not very large at all .... So instead of looking like a planet , the photos look like they were taken on a stage set , no larger than about 50 to 100 feet or so ... This strange anomaly has been explained away by the moon having no atmosphere and therefore distances can not be photographed or judged properly. Yet I have seen other moon photos , taken by unmanned missions, where this lack of depth perception and distance perspective was not a problem .... Can you explain why this was only a problem with the Apollo photos and not the photos from the unmanned missions ? ... Did they perhaps use a different type of camera lens ? .... and also is there is any type of lens which could have been used for Apollo, which would have shown the actual distances of the mountains or the actual large size of them ? ... Or can depth perception and distances never be photographed in a vacuum ? Edited February 22, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 (edited) Craig .... I don't believe you have thrown anyone's photographic evidence in the dust bin ... Jack's explanations make sense to me and so do Jones' .... Maybe this has more to do with perception than photographic shop talk .One of the main reasons I have always believed the Apollo photographs to be fake is the fact that there is no depth perception in any of them ... and what I mean by that , is that the allegedly huge mountains which are suppossedly many miles away from the subject being photographed , look like they are only a few yards away from the foreground and not very large at all .... So instead of looking like a planet , the photos look like they were taken on a stage set , no larger than about 50 to 100 feet or so ... This strange anomaly has been explained away by the moon having no atmosphere and therefore distances can not be photographed or judged properly. Yet I have seen other moon photos , taken by unmanned missions, where this lack of depth perception and distance perspective was not a problem .... Can you explain why this was only a problem with the Apollo photos and not the photos from the unmanned missions ? ... Did they perhaps use a different type of camera lens ? .... and also is there is any type of lens which could have been used for Apollo, which would have shown the actual distances of the mountains or the actual large size of them ? ... Or can depth perception and distances never be photographed in a vacuum ? Why don't we stick to a single subject. Start a new thread about the perception of 3d depth in a 2d photograph if you want to discuss it As for White and Jones, the emperical evidence says they are wrong. No need to "believe" anything. Thats the power of emperical study, its pretty much black and white. If the study is true it can be reproduced. If it is false it will fail. Simply as that. I've offered a number of emperical studies and made the data avalable so that anyone can do them and seeif what I say is true. No one "needs to believe" anything I say. WHite and Jones on the other hand offer only words...words that have been shown by emperical study to simply be wrong. If either think they are still right and I am wrong, let them provide something more than words. Of course you can continue to "believe" anything you choose, but thats not a very good method for getting at the truth...if the truth is really your goal. Edited February 22, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Craig .... I don't believe you have thrown anyone's photographic evidence in the dust bin ... Jack's explanations make sense to me and so do Jones' .... Maybe this has more to do with perception than photographic shop talk .One of the main reasons I have always believed the Apollo photographs to be fake is the fact that there is no depth perception in any of them ... and what I mean by that , is that the allegedly huge mountains which are suppossedly many miles away from the subject being photographed , look like they are only a few yards away from the foreground and not very large at all .... So instead of looking like a planet , the photos look like they were taken on a stage set , no larger than about 50 to 100 feet or so ... This strange anomaly has been explained away by the moon having no atmosphere and therefore distances can not be photographed or judged properly. Yet I have seen other moon photos , taken by unmanned missions, where this lack of depth perception and distance perspective was not a problem .... Can you explain why this was only a problem with the Apollo photos and not the photos from the unmanned missions ? ... Did they perhaps use a different type of camera lens ? .... and also is there is any type of lens which could have been used for Apollo, which would have shown the actual distances of the mountains or the actual large size of them ? ... Or can depth perception and distances never be photographed in a vacuum ? I can sympathise with why you feel this to be the case. What grates on me is the claim that this is proof that the landings were faked. Looking at some of the main differences between lunar and earth landscapes. On the moon:- There are no atmospheric effects. There is nothing familiar in the background to provide scale (e.g. trees, houses). Other optical effects such as Heiligenschein. Secondary lighting from lunar surface and other bright objects (e.g. spacesuits, mylar covered LM). (I've italicised these last two as they don't pertain as much to distance landscapes.) This is why I look at the minutiae in the Apollo photos, which would be exceedingly difficult for someone to fake, such as parallax and minute changes in shadows. As to the differences between certain photos, I'd need to see which photos you were specifically referring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 (edited) Ok , I will start a new thread on this then because it is the main reason the Apollo photos look so fake ... Along with the mountains , which look like painted scenery ... Plus , there is ALWAYS a dividing line between the foreground and the background that looks like the stage ending and the painted backdrop beginning . Many times this painted line is covered with small rocks , but that hardly disguises the line ... The backdrop mountains are always smooth looking and usually a whiter color than the grey, rock strewn foreground . And why don't the moon photos from unmanned missions have this appearance , if this a typical occurance of photos taken in a vacuum ? ... Do different cameras or different types of lenses create different looking photos ? I will post these questions , along with photos showing this effect .... This is not a question of no 3d depth in 2d photographs , because photos taken on Earth and Mars show distance and they are 2d photos . Craig .... As for your evidence which you claim refutes Jack's , how is that ? .... Jack has always claimed that multiple light sources were used on the moon sets and you have confirmed this fact .... The only difference being your light sources are the sun , wide open sky ( Earthshine ) , and snow ( lunar surface ) .. and Jack's are studio lights . So how have you proven your case and he hasn't ? .... Multiple lights sources and multiple shadows can be caused by either. Edited February 22, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Craig .... As for your evidence which you claim refutes Jack's , how is that ? .... Jack has always claimed that multiple light sources were used on the moon sets and you have confirmed this fact .... The only difference being your light sources are the sun , wide open sky ( Earthshine ) , and snow ( lunar surface ) .. and Jack's are studio lights .So how have you proven your case and he hasn't ? .... Multiple lights sources and multiple shadows can be caused by either. Don't try and switch arguments in mid stream Duane... I''ve refuted two of Jacks recent arguments with emperical evidence. Neither involve his claim that there were multiple light sources on the moon. If you can't even get these simple fact correct why should we listen to anything you say? First I have (and quite a few others) have shown his claim about Armstrongs shadow to be incorrect. Second I have shown his claim that with diffusion and balance you can create photos with two lightsources but no double shadows to be incorrect. I have also done the same to Jones similar claim. Third I've never claimed that "earthshine" is a lightsource for the Apollo photos. Fourth, Jack has yet to show convincing evidence that "studio lights" have been used in ANY of the lunar photos. However if yotu think he has please post away. Finally please explain to me WHY you think Jack is right about "studio lights" being used inthe moon photos when he, a self proclaimed "photo expert" fails to understand the basic facts of studio lighting and can't even understand how a shaodw cast by the sun works? Looks to me like Jack White is in no position to make ANY claims about how ANY kind of light works.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 2007 There is one thing that Jack understands very well , along with David Percy , Neville Jones and millions of other people , but for some very strange reason with all of your photographic experience , you don't .... and the thing they all understand is that the Apollo photographs are studio fakes and the multiple light sources and multiple shadows were caused by stagelighting . I really don't understand why everyone can't see how phony looking they really are ... Some of them are down right laughable they are so faked looking .... Like those silly looking panoramas , for instance ... The 'sun ' is nothing more than a huge spotlight and the mountain backdrops are nothing but painted cardboard ... You would think with nasa's budget they could have produced some more realistic looking photographs . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 There is one thing that Jack understands very well , along with David Percy , Neville Jones and millions of other people , but for some very strange reason with all of your photographic experience , you don't .... and the thing they all understand is that the Apollo photographs are studio fakes and the multiple light sources and multiple shadows were caused by stagelighting . What I don't understand is why, when there are thousands (tens of thousands?) of professional photographers who do not find any anomalies in the Apollo images, you choose to place your faith in but a small few (less than 10). I really don't understand why everyone can't see how phony looking they really are ... Some of them are down right laughable they are so faked looking .... Like those silly looking panoramas , for instance ... The 'sun ' is nothing more than a huge spotlight and the mountain backdrops are nothing but painted cardboard ... You would think with nasa's budget they could have produced some more realistic looking photographs . And your professional basis for this opinion is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 2007 "And your professional basis for this opinion is?" I can tell the difference between a planet and a moon set .... What's yours ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 I can tell the difference between a planet and a moon set .... What's yours ? I don't make claims that things were filmed on a "moon set". I examine the images, listen to both sides, and then base my opinion on what experts in the field can explain to me about relative effects. I don't make claims regarding photography on any professional basis. When, however, someone says something is impossible and I can reproduce that "impossible" image with ease... well, I place less faith in that person's professional opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 2007 "I don't make claims regarding photography on any professional basis" Neither do I .... I only go by what looks real and what doesn't... and when I listen to professional's explain something , I go by what makes the most sense to me .... I have read both Craig's and Jack's explanations as to why the Apollo photos look a certain way , and so far I have understood and agreed with Jack's analysis and not Craigs . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 I really don't understand why everyone can't see how phony looking they really are ... Some of them are down right laughable they are so faked looking .... Like those silly looking panoramas , for instance ... The 'sun ' is nothing more than a huge spotlight and the mountain backdrops are nothing but painted cardboard ... You would think with nasa's budget they could have produced some more realistic looking photographs . You seem to be making some claims there. Even so, you are taking Jack's claims over Craigs. The number of professional photographers who agree with Jack are limited to but a few (as I said earlier). Although untested, I would imagine that the support on Craig's side would dwarf those on Jacks. So you accept Jack's claims over others. You have said because it makes more sense to you. If another person, without photographic knowledge, chooses to believe Craig's explanations over jack's versions - because it makes more 'sense' to them - why is their stance any less valid than yours? Both parties base their opinions on a foundation of ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 (edited) "I don't make claims regarding photography on any professional basis" Neither do I .... I only go by what looks real and what doesn't... and when I listen to professional's explain something , I go by what makes the most sense to me .... I have read both Craig's and Jack's explanations as to why the Apollo photos look a certain way , and so far I have understood and agreed with Jack's analysis and not Craigs . There you go again, doing that 'believing" thing. Thats pretty poor leg to stand on when something is simply to prove using emperical evidence. So where have your 'experts" posted thier emperical evicence so we can chek it and then retest it to see if waht thye say is true. I have tested the evidecne provided my thier words and have found that the emperical evidecne does not match their words...and so far no one...not even you have been able to impeach my emperical evidience. A pretty poor track record for the CT team. Tell you what, why not get your mentor and "professional photographer" Jack White to supply emperical proof to backup his claims about how light and shadow works. Lets see exactly how right or wrong BOTH of you are. Edited February 23, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 "And your professional basis for this opinion is?" I can tell the difference between a planet and a moon set .... What's yours ? And yet every time you try to explain how you can tell the difference, you talk about 'depth perception' which is only possible with an atmosphere to produce haze with distance, or with objects of known size or distance so you can accurately judge scale. Neither exists for the background mountains in the apollo images. 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