|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 1, 2008 20:59:48 GMT -4
Nope. I posted mine years ago. Posting more won't help. White offers an affirmative rebuttal (that they were faked) for which he declines to provide evidence. Therefore the ball remains in his court.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 1, 2008 21:24:45 GMT -4
I'm not an expert, HOWEVER: Doesn't the placement of the shadow depend on where you point the camera? To the left, right, above or lower? Seems like a simple enough concept.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 1, 2008 22:07:45 GMT -4
Here is an illustration I first posted nearly three years ago showing why Jack White is full of crap.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 1, 2008 22:15:38 GMT -4
I read through some of the threads relating to this issue over at the Education Forum. Seems like Evan, Craig and others did a great job in explaining the 'mystery' of the shadows. I don't know what else you could do to convince Jack. If there is anybody out there who moves goalposts, it is he! Just shows that he isn't looking for truth, but is stubborning sticking to his flawed theories. Can anyone here imagine having a brain that worked like that? Look, lets just correct the problem: i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb184/ginniegatrit/shadowmove.gif
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jan 2, 2008 0:04:17 GMT -4
In his updated "study" he has lines drawn through some shadows on Apollo photos to show they don't go to the bottom center but I'm sure some of the lines are not aligned properly with the shadows. He also seems to be unaware that the camera was detachable and didn't have to be latched onto the chest when used.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 2, 2008 1:06:42 GMT -4
I looked at the first line of the top post: "Nobody yet has offered proof that the feet of a standing photographer are NOT directly under his head..."
Thought about it for a full second. If I tilt the camera, are my feet at the bottom of the frame? NO.
But Dave Greer got one wrong. The Nights Who Say Ni, say "Ni!" The knight that gets his limbed hacked off (sorry....only a flesh wound!) is the Black Knight.
I like his "new" study -- he seems to have forgotten over half of his original claim. Now it is enough if the shadow just points towards the center. To which end he draws two very nearly parallel lines, making sure to draw one through the left side of the head and towards the right leg, the other from the right side of the head and towards the left leg....
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 2, 2008 1:15:30 GMT -4
It also draws away from the ORIGINAL claim. His latest condition have only a passing resemblance to the Apollo images.
My intention is to recreate the four images he says are wrong. I'll do that this afternoon if I can be motivated to get off my fat butt during the holidays...
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 2, 2008 1:18:23 GMT -4
BTW - Jay, do you have the URL of your original rebuttals? May as well present them too. If they don't meet Jack's latest set of conditions, they will probably still be useful for the original claims.
Also, BTW #2: Hi Duane! Hope you had a good New Year. (Duane is a 'watcher' of threads that disagree with him...)
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 2, 2008 1:39:29 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 2, 2008 1:41:19 GMT -4
And no, White doesn't get to add ad hoc conditions on the proof photos just to make them impossible to take. We have duplicated the Apollo images. Whatever else might not be possible to duplicate is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 2, 2008 2:32:19 GMT -4
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jan 2, 2008 12:03:59 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Jan 2, 2008 13:27:53 GMT -4
Here is an illustration I first posted nearly three years ago showing why Jack White is full of crap. I've been showing Jack similar diagrams for a long time now, he just ignores them. When he can't come up with an excuse to dismiss the evidence, ignoring it is his only response. I've never seen him acknowledge that he is wrong, even on irrelevant details.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jan 2, 2008 15:08:25 GMT -4
How about this: My own shadow, camera held centered at chest-height, then tilted down to show my feet, and back up: (Click for QuickTime video, 2.76mb)
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 2, 2008 18:55:03 GMT -4
Wouldn't a shadow have to start at your feet no matter where the light source was? I'm not getting what he's saying. He says the shadows don't lead to the astronauts feet. Then where would they lead too - if they didn't , wouldn't it have to be someone else's shadow? And the astronaut would have no shadow? It just doesn't make sense. And this Duane person bends over backwards to defend Jack and ignores fallacies in Jack's position. Your picture wouldn't be good enough for Jack. He changed the goalposts. Now you have to have to have a horizon in your photo, then he demanded that your feet be in them too! In the end, he has shown that not only is he ignorant of photography, but also stubborn, and has no desire to actually learn anything.
|
|