Evan Burton Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I'm always fascinated by this image. No matter how much I try, I can NOT get my brain to see both shades of grey as being equal. Despite knowing they are equal, I have to prove it to myself using Photoshop. I print it out and show people the picture on paper. They swear they are different colours - until you fold it over and place the two squares next to one another. It is quite handy for winning a drink in the pub! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) Well I must say that little checkerboard trick is quite impressive .... The colors sure look different to me , but then I don't know how to Photoshop images to prove it one way or another . But this still doesn't explain why there are no bootprints leading up to where Conrad is doing the bunny hop on the moon set . So I gather from your distraction tactics with the checkerboard picture that none of you can refute the evidence which shows this photo to be bogus ? No , I can't prove that Conrad was suspended from a fly system , but from the position of his dancing bootprints , the lack of any bootprints leading up tp his position , and the way he is leaning forward , it appears that a fly system cable would be the most logical answer as to what is obviously wrong with this picture .. Edited February 21, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I disagree. Given the fact that there is an area in shadow where you wouldn't be able to see bootprints, and the fact that you don't see bootprints, the most logical explanation is that they are in the shadow. It would only take a single bootprint to get him that far into the frame from the left side if he walked in that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 There are no bootprints in the shadow of his legs . And even if there were , it still doesn't explain the position of the bootprints which ARE in the photo ... It's these bunny hop prints which are the dead giveaway for a cable being used . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I don't get it. How do you know there isn't a bootprint in the shadow? Why are the prints proof of a cable and not proof of him turning around in place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 If he had turned around in place , there would be bootprint evidence of that fact ... and there isn't . Plus if you read the ALSJ dialogue that goes along with this particular photo shoot , you will see that there is no mention of him turing around for any reason . The bootprints don't show any forward movement but rather a little side step dance ... If you watch the documentary ' What Happened on the Moon" , you will see where Percy proved that the leaning forward , hopping motion of the astronots in the videos allegedy taken on the moon are IDENTICAL to the leaning forward , hopping motion of the astronots in training , while suspended from their cables .... IDENTICAL . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Yes , the evidence is obvious .... There are no bootprints coming in from the left in this photo either .... Not even in the shadows of his legs .Look at the way Bean is tilted forward and the way his arms are dangling out in front of him ... He is obviously hanging from a fly system .. The position of his bootprints even show evidence of this fact , and show that he didn't walk up to where he was suspended for this photo to be taken . Duane...I just computer-enhanced the "shadow" to the maximum, removing about 90 percent of the photo's density. The contours, shadows and pebbles of the gound show plainly within the shadow, BUT THERE ARE NO FOOTPRINTS. Sorry I am not able to post it. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Thanks Jack .... Send it to me if you can via e-mail and I will post it for you . I knew there were no bootprints in the leg shadows , but it's nice to have confirmation of that fact . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 You're 'enhancement' is creating things that aren't there. All you can see in those shadows is the lense flare and the graininess of the scan. Do you ever plan on responding to the other thread Jack, or do you hope it'll go away if you pretend it's not there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Kevin ... You just never can admit it when you're wrong about something . But then that does seem to be the typical stance taken by all who defend the bogus Apollo photography . Oh wait ... You DID admit that you're wrong .. "All you can see in those shadows is the lense flare and the graininess of the scan." And NO BOOTPRINTS , right ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Well, if you can't see the dirt, it's going to be hard to see bootprints in it eh? And as I have said, there aren't necessarily any bootprints anyway, he's standing within a single step of the edge of the frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Thanks Jack .... Send it to me if you can via e-mail and I will post it for you .I knew there were no bootprints in the leg shadows , but it's nice to have confirmation of that fact . Duane Can you explain why it is perfectly acceptable for Jack to "computer-enhanced the 'shadow' to the maximum, removing about 90 percent of the photo's density", whereas you accuse others who use similar techniques (which they document in the thread) of all manner of deception? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 Because Jack ENHANCING a shadow , looking for non existant bootprints , is not the same thing as ALTERING a photo with photoshop , by BENDING a shadow that is straight , to fit the posture of the one suppossedly casting the bogus shadow . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Because Jack ENHANCING a shadow , looking for non existant bootprints , is not the same thing as ALTERING a photo with photoshop , by BENDING a shadow that is straight , to fit the posture of the one suppossedly casting the bogus shadow . Excuse me Duane, alteration is alteration. Tossing out 90 percent of the density of an image ALTERS the image. You can't play it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 (edited) Because Jack ENHANCING a shadow , looking for non existant bootprints , is not the same thing as ALTERING a photo with photoshop , by BENDING a shadow that is straight , to fit the posture of the one suppossedly casting the bogus shadow . How about the lunar rover image, where I ENHANCED the image, looking for tyre tracks... which the enhancement showed were there? EDIT For the record - and this is about the SIXTH time I've had to tell you, that shadow of the astronaut was NOT bent. It was stretched vertically - not twisted or bent at all. Anyone capable of using a tool as basic as MS Paint can prove that you're wrong - like I said before. So, did you use MS Paint yourself to prove for yourself that it had been stretched? If you don't know how to use MS Paint, all you need to do is ask. Edited February 22, 2007 by Dave Greer 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