Anomalous object in A17 moonscape

[Duane Daman]

Good grief Craig , the only word you know how to use in defending your lost cause is "ignorant " ?

Just because you have taken it upon yourself to defend the bogus Apollo photography , doesn't mean that those who are able to expose it for the phony crap it really is , don't know anything about photography .

Jarrah exposed Dave's dishonest games in his video ... and if I get his permsion to post his rebuttal to Dave here , I will do so .

Oh, and the Hasslebald field of view and the Cannon field of view are not the same ... Thanks for clarifying that ... I do believe that was Jarrah's point all along .

Edited May 4, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

Conclusion ... The experiment proved that nasa used a small scale moon set and an astronot manikin , with a close up artificial light source ... and that is the reason the shadow in the A15 photo matched the experiment ..

One of your most ignorant lines yet! So exactly WHY will the artifical light creat a different shadow than the sun? HUH? You are in over your head again Duane! BTW can you see tyhe law of the inverse square at work inthe recreation photo.

Oh and when you did your little test outside with your backpack, did you walk away from yourself and look at your shadow from the same level and psoition as the Apollo camera? If not how do you KNOW what your shadow looks like from the proper viewing angle? Unbelievable....

[Craig Lamson]

Good grief Craig , is the only word you know how to use in defending your lost cause is "ignorant " ?

Just because you have taken it upon yourself to defend the bogus Apollo photography , doesn't mean that those who are able to expose it for the phony crap it really is , don't know anything about photography .

Jarrah exposed Dave's dishonest games in his video ... and if I get his permsion to post his rebuttal to Dave here , I will do so .

Oh, and the Hasslebald field of view and the Cannon field of view are not the same ... Thanks for clarifying that ... I do believe that was Jarrah's point all along .

Well Duane both you and White ARE ignorant of the subject matter...you just proved it again in this post.

White claims it is the FOCAL Length ( in this case 60mm) that gives the angle of view of a lens...the shorter the focal length the wider the angle of view. Clearly this is not true. I just proved he was full of crap and also just proved you don't even understand the argument! Ignorance is the perfect word!

Just to review..three lenses with a focal length of 60mm ( well one has a focal length of 58 but Jarrah has already stipulated in his video that 57 is close enough so 58 is just fine) yet all of the lenses have a different angle of view. You BOTH are toast again!

Edited May 4, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

And once again ... " Me thinks thou dost protest too much " ... You really do get nasty when your precious little myth of Apollo gets picked apart , don't you Craig ? ... Your only recourse is characater assassination ... First Jack , then me and now Jarrah ... Try not to be so obvious in your fear of those who can and will prove that Apollo was a monumental hoax on every level .

Go take a photo of yourself out in the sunlight Craig and see if you can get the same results that Dave's friend did with the astronot dummy and the artificial light .

Oh , and while you're doing this new little experiment , try not to bend yourself into a contortionist this time !

[Kevin M. West]

And once again ... " Me thinks thou dost protest too much " ... You really do get nasty when your precious little myth of Apollo gets picked apart , don't you Craig ? ... Your only recourse is characater assassination ... First Jack , then me and now Jarrah ... Try not to be so obvious in your fear of those who can and will prove that Apollo was a monumental hoax on every level .

Go take a photo of yourself out in the sunlight Craig and see if you can get the same results that Dave's friend did with the astronot dummy and the artificial light .

Oh , and while you're doing this new little experiment , try not to bend yourself into a contortionist this time !

Duane, the only way you will be convinced is if you go try the experiment yourself. With an actual camera in the proper location, not just turning your head.

[Evan Burton]

My position is this ..

1. A friend of Dave's tried to bail him put of a jam concerning the A15 anomalous shadow discussion , which Dave was losing ... So to get the shadow to match the phony Apollo photo , he recreated the scene by using a small astronot doll and close up artificial lighting .

2. His shadow experiment came very close to the shadow in the A15 photo because nasa obviously created their photo by the same means .. They used a small scale astronot manikin on a moon set, with close up artificial lighting .

3. I don't need to make any photos of me standing in the sun because all anyone has to do is go outside on a sunny day , lean forward on any terrain they choose , and they will see that their shadow MATCHES their position .

Conclusion ... The experiment proved that nasa used a small scale moon set and an astronot manikin , with a close up artificial light source ... and that is the reason the shadow in the A15 photo matched the experiment ..

In other words , the experiment blew up in both of their faces because it proved my point instead of theirs .. which is ; The whistleblower A15 photo is a fake .

But you have previously said the shadow was reversed; you said you did your own experiment and that it proved you were right.

Yet now you say that the shadows are correct for both situations (Apollo, 1/6th model) because a model was used!

So you do admit that there was no fabrication in the 1/6th image, and it is a true representation of the given conditions?

[Craig Lamson]

And once again ... " Me thinks thou dost protest too much " ... You really do get nasty when your precious little myth of Apollo gets picked apart , don't you Craig ? ... Your only recourse is characater assassination ... First Jack , then me and now Jarrah ... Try not to be so obvious in your fear of those who can and will prove that Apollo was a monumental hoax on every level .

Go take a photo of yourself out in the sunlight Craig and see if you can get the same results that Dave's friend did with the astronot dummy and the artificial light .

Oh , and while you're doing this new little experiment , try not to bend yourself into a contortionist this time !

Do you actually read what you write? Sheesh.

You have admitted you are ignorant about photography and it shows, so how is point out what you agree with character assassination? As for Jack, his character commited suicide, by his own words. No help needed from anyone for that one. As for Jarrah he has yet to deal with this big mistake of his on Youtube nor here, where he could choose to defend himself if he wanted. But the facts remain that his statement about angle of view and focal length was just plain wrong. This is pretty basic stuff and since he claims to a 'trained and exerienced" photographer it appears he is the one who killed his character.

No Duane, you made there claim that your shadow looked just fine...YOU do the experiment with a CAMERA this time and post the results. You made the claim now back it uo FOR ONCE

with actual evidence.

Edited May 4, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

Slightly off topic, but I found this image and thought it demonstrated very well what happens to straight-line shadows on an undulating surface:

The image was taken by UrbanTiki, from the Flickr website. If you want to reproduce the image, please familiarise yourself with the copyright conditions.

Incidentally, it was taken with a Hasselblad 500EL!

[Evan Burton]

Another piece of information if anyone is interested: the technical data sheet for the Zeiss Biogon f5.6 / 60mm lens specifically used with the lunar cameras.

[Dave Greer]

Moderated my own post.

Edited May 5, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Dave Greer]

GENTLEMEN!

Discussion about what happened on YouTube or elsewhere is not relevant to this discussion.

Discuss such matters via PM or off this board. First and final warning!

Duane,

1. Let me make sure I understand your position with absolute clarity: you claim that the images produced by Pericynthion and passed to Dave regarding the Apollo 15 shadow are faked? That it is not a true representation of the given conditions?

2. I'd encourage you to post your own photographic evidence here on the board. I'd request that you show the setup (e.g. what light angle, simulated equipment the subject wore, etc). If it is indeed as you say, then we can probably arrange a more accurate recreation of the event in order to determine what is actually happening.

My position is this ..

1. A friend of Dave's tried to bail him put of a jam concerning the A15 anomalous shadow discussion , which Dave was losing ... So to get the shadow to match the phony Apollo photo , he recreated the scene by using a small astronot doll and close up artificial lighting .

2. His shadow experiment came very close to the shadow in the A15 photo because nasa obviously created their photo by the same means .. They used a small scale astronot manikin on a moon set, with close up artificial lighting .

3. I don't need to make any photos of me standing in the sun because all anyone has to do is go outside on a sunny day , lean forward on any terrain they choose , and they will see that their shadow MATCHES their position .

Conclusion ... The experiment proved that nasa used a small scale moon set and an astronot manikin , with a close up artificial light source ... and that is the reason the shadow in the A15 photo matched the experiment ..

In other words , the experiment blew up in both of their faces because it proved my point instead of theirs .. which is ; The whistleblower A15 photo is a fake .

Oh , nice tap dancing Dave ... I do believe this would be one of your best performances yet .

I will very much enjoy watching Jarrah slice and dice your new dance into little tiny pieces .

EDIT More self-moderation!

Duane - the shadow "controversy" has been dis-proven by any standard you choose to apply that's applicable to a forum of this nature. If you wish to prove your point, then do so - simply stating that you leaned forward and saw your shadow the right way means absolutely nothing! Of COURSE you're shadow was the right way round - just like it's the right way round in the Apollo photo. You want to prove otherwise, provide some evidence. I have, and Pericynthion has. I dare you to try and come up with a single shred of credible evidence to support your claim.

I find it laughable that you use the evidence provided by myself and Peri to prove your own case - clearly the astronaut shadow is the right way round. If you believe it's so obviously back to front, then it should be easy for you to prove you point. Whooping and hollering and claiming victory just makes you seem silly.

I'll ask again - what evidence can you provide to support your claim that the astronauts shadow is "back to front"? That's photographic or empirical evidence please, NOT "I say it's true therefore I'm right".

Edited May 5, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Duane Daman]

I did agree that the shadow experiment made with the astronot doll was a close match for the phony A15 photo .

I also made the claim that the shadow looked backwards in the A15 photo , as it didn't match the subject it was suppossed to belong to .. Therefore the A15 photo was most likely taken for Apollo using a similar small scale model set up .

Then I made the claim that if the photo had really been taken on the moon in the sunlight on a flat surface as was the case in this particular photo ( nice try with the wavy shadows Evan ) , then the shadow would have matched that of the astronot , and not appear to be upright and backwards , while he was leaning forwards in the opposite direction ... As for posting proof of what a real person in sunlight would look like here , I wouldn't waste my time , as you all would just play a game with that also .

I do find it really funny though , that everyone else who has seen this particular photo , can see that the shadow is anomalous ... It's only the game playing Apollo defenders on this forum and of course the game playing Apollo defenders on the UM , who refuse to acknowledge that the shadow doesn't match the astronot and that the photo screams of whistleblowing .

...............................................

Here are Jarrah's rebuttals to Dave and his photo analysis.

"When I put my MoonFaker series up on Youtube, Greer and Windley's friends griped about whether or not I had the same focal length as the astronauts (I did). I knew from day one when I uploaded "Teachers & Cameras" that they'd try and pull something out of their hat to save face, it seems I was right: that's why I was sure to include Jay Windley's Hasselblad image.

Windley's photo appears right in the middle of Part 2.

It was taken using the same photographic equipment used during Lunar EVA, interestingly, Greer makes no mention of it in his latest tap dance. The reason is obvious, Greer's Fuji F10 angle-of-view is clearly considerably more wide than Windley's Hasselblad image. For obvious reasons svector refuses to discuss this, and it seems Greer wont touch it either.

Why don't you ask him yourself: if Greer's angle-of-view is the same as that of the Hasselblad, why is it clearly wider than Windley's angle-of-view? Remember, Windley's shot was taken using the said Hasselblad."

........................

"Another thing that they refuse to comment on, aside from the inconsistencies between the two angles of view, is the fact that when complaining about me interviewing a visual art teacher they won't comment on the fact that their best friend chooses to compare the angle of view of Apollo photographs, with that seen in Raphael's School of Athens. Both Greer and svector loved shoving Jenny Heller's position as an art teacher in my face, until they realized their best friend Windley compared photography with art.

Neither of them mentioned visual art teachers again."

......................................

"I think for me, Windley's photograph is a rebuttal enough.

Ralph Rene once said, the trouble with lying is that your lie changes slightly with each telling. Initially, Greer claimed his angle-of-view was the same as that of the Hasselblad, now he's claiming it was narrower. It's easy to prove both claims wrong when comparing it to an actual Hasselblad image, such as Windley's which I've used in my newest film. Windley took it in the hopes of disproving the converging shadows argument, but in doing so failed to reproduce the converge in AS17-136-20744. It's no wonder Zig Zag Productions refused to show the original Apollo 17 photo.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...yHasselblad.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.greer70...ws/shadow01.jpg

Compare the Hasselblad image Windley feebly used to try and disprove the shadows evidence, with the photo Greer now wants us to believe was taken using a narrower angle-of-view. With Greer's claim's in mind, why does the angle-of-view seen in Greer's photograph appear wider than that seen in Windley's Hasselblad image?

Ironically, in their efforts to disprove the evidence, they have ultimately confirmed it. Understandably, this is the one subject that both Greer and his friend svector hate to discuss, when up against that brick wall.

That's my rebuttal, short and sweet. Feel free to use it."

Jarrah

[Evan Burton]

Duane,

So you say that because the shadow is correct for the simulated scene using the 1/6th scale Apollo model and matches the Apollo 15 image, it is likely they used a similar type of model in the Apollo 15 image.

Then could you explain how using a full size representation (i.e. an Apollo astronaut on the lunar surface) reverses the shadow? All you are doing is effectively changing the scale - it does not affect the relative positions of the major features of the shadow.

The simulation image uses a similar model in a similar position in similar lighting conditions to the Apollo 15 image. If we scaled that up to a full size model in a similar position under similar lighting conditions, then the scale of the shadow would increase; it would not alter the basic appearance of the shadow.

Therefore the shadow of a full size model matches the shadow expected from an Apollo astronaut in a similar position on the lunar surface under similar lighting conditions!

Your claim is invalid unless you can prove that shadow is reversed from what would be expected from a astronaut on the lunar surface. Everything so far disproves your claim and supports that the image is genuine.

Edited May 7, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Evan Burton]

...As for posting proof of what a real person in sunlight would look like here , I wouldn't waste my time , as you all would just play a game with that also...

In other words, you are unable to provide such proof because it would invalidate your claim.

[Dave Greer]

I did agree that the shadow experiment made with the astronot doll was a close match for the phony A15 photo .

I also made the claim that the shadow looked backwards in the A15 photo , as it didn't match the subject it was suppossed to belong to .. Therefore the A15 photo was most likely taken for Apollo using a similar small scale model set up .

Then I made the claim that if the photo had really been taken on the moon in the sunlight on a flat surface as was the case in this particular photo ( nice try with the wavy shadows Evan ) , then the shadow would have matched that of the astronot , and not appear to be upright and backwards , while he was leaning forwards in the opposite direction ... As for posting proof of what a real person in sunlight would look like here , I wouldn't waste my time , as you all would just play a game with that also .

I do find it really funny though , that everyone else who has seen this particular photo , can see that the shadow is anomalous ... It's only the game playing Apollo defenders on this forum and of course the game playing Apollo defenders on the UM , who refuse to acknowledge that the shadow doesn't match the astronot and that the photo screams of whistleblowing .

...............................................

Here are Jarrah's rebuttals to Dave and his photo analysis.

"When I put my MoonFaker series up on Youtube, Greer and Windley's friends griped about whether or not I had the same focal length as the astronauts (I did). I knew from day one when I uploaded "Teachers & Cameras" that they'd try and pull something out of their hat to save face, it seems I was right: that's why I was sure to include Jay Windley's Hasselblad image.

Windley's photo appears right in the middle of Part 2.

It was taken using the same photographic equipment used during Lunar EVA, interestingly, Greer makes no mention of it in his latest tap dance. The reason is obvious, Greer's Fuji F10 angle-of-view is clearly considerably more wide than Windley's Hasselblad image. For obvious reasons svector refuses to discuss this, and it seems Greer wont touch it either.

Why don't you ask him yourself: if Greer's angle-of-view is the same as that of the Hasselblad, why is it clearly wider than Windley's angle-of-view? Remember, Windley's shot was taken using the said Hasselblad."

........................

"Another thing that they refuse to comment on, aside from the inconsistencies between the two angles of view, is the fact that when complaining about me interviewing a visual art teacher they won't comment on the fact that their best friend chooses to compare the angle of view of Apollo photographs, with that seen in Raphael's School of Athens. Both Greer and svector loved shoving Jenny Heller's position as an art teacher in my face, until they realized their best friend Windley compared photography with art.

Neither of them mentioned visual art teachers again."

......................................

"I think for me, Windley's photograph is a rebuttal enough.

Ralph Rene once said, the trouble with lying is that your lie changes slightly with each telling. Initially, Greer claimed his angle-of-view was the same as that of the Hasselblad, now he's claiming it was narrower. It's easy to prove both claims wrong when comparing it to an actual Hasselblad image, such as Windley's which I've used in my newest film. Windley took it in the hopes of disproving the converging shadows argument, but in doing so failed to reproduce the converge in AS17-136-20744. It's no wonder Zig Zag Productions refused to show the original Apollo 17 photo.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i1/Truth...yHasselblad.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.greer70...ws/shadow01.jpg

Compare the Hasselblad image Windley feebly used to try and disprove the shadows evidence, with the photo Greer now wants us to believe was taken using a narrower angle-of-view. With Greer's claim's in mind, why does the angle-of-view seen in Greer's photograph appear wider than that seen in Windley's Hasselblad image?

Ironically, in their efforts to disprove the evidence, they have ultimately confirmed it. Understandably, this is the one subject that both Greer and his friend svector hate to discuss, when up against that brick wall.

That's my rebuttal, short and sweet. Feel free to use it."

Jarrah

That's not a rebuttal, it's someone who simply can't address the facts of the matter! I NEVER initially claimed my angle of view was the same as a Hasselblad, so Jarrah is wrong. I never made any comment at all about the focal length used in his Moonfaker series, so he's wrong AGAIN. I've demonstrated why my FOV is narrower than a Hassy rather than 3 times wider, Jarrah MUST know this by know becasue he's bound to have checked it.

I'll say it again: Field of view is NOT solely dependent on focal length, it's also dependent on the film format.

Duane, Jarrah refuses to address this very simple point because he knows it renders the argument in his video completely invalid. He continues to try and deflect attention away from his analysis of my beach photo and on to Jay Windley's Hasselblad image, even though there is no similar-shaped rock in that photo for a comparison. Why does he do that? Surely he should be addressing the points I've raised, and admitting his error over somethihng very fundamental that anyone can check?

Wow - and you accuse ME of being the tap-dancer? Why don't you actually ask Jarrah yourself about why he refuses to address this point?

Edited May 7, 2007 by Dave Greer