Guest John Gillespie Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 ALERT - St. John Hunt is on RIGHT NOW with Alex Jones, talking about his father's role in the JFK assassination: http://www.infowars.com/listen.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Some more video evidence that looking at the direction of the shadow of an object cast on a surface isn't really a good way to analyse the light source, since we can't be sure of things like terrain, angle etc. I took this today, the stick on the right is angled toward the camera, the stick on the left is pointing straight up. I've moved the camera around so you can see the shadows from the other side as well. NOTE this is NOT meant to be a direct recreation of the Apollo photo (the sun angle was too high for starters... although a lower sun angle would make my point even more clearly). It shows that in order to analyse shadow directions in photos, you really need to look at the vanishing point rather than the apparent direction of the shadows on a surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 That pretty much destroys Jarrah's claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Why don't we wait for Jarrah's next video to come out before we decide who has destroyed what ? All Dave has proven is that he knows how to put sticks in the sand and operate a video camera ... This latest little demonstration looks nothing like the A17 Apollo photo in any respect ... I don't see any stick , or anything else for that matter , casting a double shadow , like the rock did in the Apollo photo . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 What double shadow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 On the rock in the phony A17 photo .... It's called the "double dasher" ... and so far , not even Dave's games has managed to reproduce it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 On the rock in the phony A17 photo .... It's called the "double dasher" ... and so far , not even Dave's games has managed to reproduce it . Duane, your failure to comprehend a demonstration of a simple premise doesn't mean it's a game, it's just further evidence of your state of embafflement when it comes to interpreting photos (a subject where you've singularly failed to excel yourself in the past - no offence, just stating a fact.) I don't need to reproduce the "double-dasher" - you can either accept that it might be caused by something hugely boring and mundane like a rock-shadow and a small crater overlapping, or you can accept that for some reason it was faked using another light-source that somehow didn't cause the rocks in the immediate vicinity of the double-dasher to cast another shadow. I'll stick with Occam unless there's some more evidence forthcoming thanks - you're more than welcome to cling to your "multiple light source" theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Multiple light sources used in the Apollo photography is not a "theory" , but rather a fact ... and this fact has been proven to be the case in many of the phony studio photos . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Multiple light sources used in the Apollo photography is not a "theory" , but rather a fact ... and this fact has been proven to be the case in many of the phony studio photos . Proven to you and a few believers in the hoax, but not proven by any kind of empirical test you may wish to apply. Look at the vanishing points in the Apollo 17 shadow-rock photo for example. The lines intersect on the shadow of the astronauts chest - exactly what you would expect to see with a single light source, and a chest-mounted Hasselblad. Sorry to keep on saying it, but your lack of knowledge of how these things work doesn't mean you're right - quite the opposite. You could take the time to learn something technical, but that would start blowing rather large holes under the waterline of your conspiracy theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Well I might have a "lack of knowledge " about photography but David Percy , Dr. David Groves and Jack White don't ... and they all have empirically proven that the Apollo photos are crude studio fakes , regardless of what you choose to believe , and inspite of the character assassinations hurled at them by those who continue to defend the bogus official Apollo record . Attempting to minimize the hoax evidence and discredit those who have exposed the hoax with your insults , is just part of the game the Apollo propangandists play . I have said this before, but the future of manned space flight will prove once and for all that Apollo was a hoax . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 (edited) Well I might have a "lack of knowledge " about photography but David Percy , Dr. David Groves and Jack White don't ... and they all have empirically proven that the Apollo photos are crude studio fakes , regardless of what you choose to believe , and inspite of the character assassinations hurled at them by those who continue to defend the bogus official Apollo record . Attempting to minimize the hoax evidence and discredit those who have exposed the hoax with your insults , is just part of the game the Apollo propangandists play . I have said this before, but the future of manned space flight will prove once and for all that Apollo was a hoax . Actually it has been shown that all three of these guys have about enough photographic knowlege to put in a thimble...with room left for your finger. SO PLEASE...show us this emperical evidence you speak of....surely you can post it by the ton! How about you start with the emperical evidence for the off center shadow study you just posted. I can't wait to see it... Oh its all handwaving? LOL! 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 Oh , I almost forgot Mr. PhotoGod ... Silly me , what was I thinking ? ... You're the ONLY photographer on the freakin planet ! .. Or at least that's what you believe , in your delusional , narcissistic mind . I will be happy to post all of their evidence here which proves that Apollo was a photographic fraud ... Thank you for the offer .... I will post it tomorrow . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 (edited) Oh , I almost forgot Mr. PhotoGod ... Silly me , what was I thinking ? ... You're the ONLY photographer on the freakin planet ! .. Or at least that's what you believe , in your delusional , narcissistic mind . I will be happy to post all of their evidence here which proves that Apollo was a photographic fraud ... Thank you for the offer .... I will post it tomorrow . NO NO NO Dunne...you are to post some very specfic EMPERICAL evidence created by White, Percy and Groves to prove the theory JAck has posted about the offfset photographers shadow...Don't try and change the subject...deal with THIS one...if you can. And BTW I've loads of company ...many professional photographers who KNOW that the Apollo photography was not shot in a studio... Bring on that emperical evidence. Edited May 15, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Jack has already presented his evidence in his new study I posted here . As for Dr. David Groves , I don't know him but I could ask him about this ... as for David Percy , I just e-mailed him to see if he is interested in debating this with you . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Jack has already presented his evidence in his new study I posted here .As for Dr. David Groves , I don't know him but I could ask him about this ... as for David Percy , I just e-mailed him to see if he is interested in debating this with you . No, Jack has presented handwaving. Where is his emperical evidence? Surely you have Percy and Groves emperical evidence right at hand Daman...right? You said: "Well I might have a "lack of knowledge " about photography but David Percy , Dr. David Groves and Jack White don't ... and they all have empirically proven that the Apollo photos are crude studio fakes" So here is the study I want to see the emperical evidence White, Percy and Groves have produced...the offset shadow study. Percy just said this: "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. " Now Percy, being the "very nice, intelligent , professional photographer" must have tested Jacks theory before posing it...right? So lets see the results of his testing. You have it right? You must because you would not just take somoeones word for something without seeing the emperical evidence...right? So post it up Daman! 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