Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 2, 2008 19:00:29 GMT -4
How about this: My own shadow, camera held centered at chest-height, then tilted down to show my feet, and back up: Very nicely done; I don't see how any intelligent and rational person could possibly argue with you. Jack White will surely dismiss it.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 2, 2008 19:08:12 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. I believe Jack is saying that (1) the shadow must come to the astronaut's feet, (2) the astronaut's feet are at the center of the frame, (3) therefore the shadow must come to the center of the frame. Of course Jack White has virturally no spatial aptitude. I don't think this is a Jack White original, though he certainly appears to embrace the argument. I believe this argument originated with John Costella.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 2, 2008 21:43:53 GMT -4
And Costella is a Physics graduate? Sheesh, fella - just draw a diagramme. Oh wait - someone has already done that.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jan 3, 2008 2:21:40 GMT -4
Your picture wouldn't be good enough for Jack. Now there's a shocker. Why? My feet are in it. (i.e., the full video, not just the first frame shown here for linkage purposes.)
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jan 3, 2008 6:22:51 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? Hey, I sense a new movie coming up ... Attack of the Mysterious Vampire Astronauts from Space
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jan 3, 2008 7:04:59 GMT -4
Jack White's theories make my head hurt. Like physically. Their ignorance literally causes pain to my head.
|
|
|
Post by craiglamson on Jan 3, 2008 7:51:01 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) Great video...it perfectly supports Jack Whites claim! He says any offset shadow must start at the photographers feet and those feet must by the laws of whatever Jack Wite dreams up that day, be at the bottom center of the image. Your shadow also points towards the bottom center of the image. Try it again so that the shadow points away from the center of the image and you will have something.
|
|
|
Post by craiglamson on Jan 3, 2008 7:56:32 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. I believe Jack is saying that (1) the shadow must come to the astronaut's feet, (2) the astronaut's feet are at the center of the frame, (3) therefore the shadow must come to the center of the frame. Of course Jack White has virturally no spatial aptitude. I don't think this is a Jack White original, though he certainly appears to embrace the argument. I believe this argument originated with John Costella. No this was a Jack White original. Costella started to play but his position is that empirical evidence such as photographs are too simple to fake and as such cannot be used as evidence. He says it is a simple matter to crop a larger image down to produce the same effects. Of course not one hoaxer to date has produced any such "cropped" images that show a shadow that points AWAY from the bottom center of the frame. It was Costella's position at the time that he would only accept maths as evidence to prove this point. I'm not sure where he stands on this today.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 3, 2008 9:25:57 GMT -4
No this was a Jack White original. Thank you, I stand corrected. Jack White's involvement certainly explains why the claim in so idiotic.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 3, 2008 17:05:58 GMT -4
If anyone is remotely interested, our old friend DavidC/Rocky has started posting to UM. The strange thing is he can't have been quite the (insert word of choice) we all thought him because he has come to the conclusion that Jack White is wrong. Being David, he adds this:
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jan 3, 2008 18:00:50 GMT -4
Never fear. He's launched into his infamous "objectivity" tests already. Back to his same old one trick again.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 3, 2008 21:24:15 GMT -4
Aaaaand....he's gone.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 4, 2008 1:01:38 GMT -4
Oooh. David C says Jack White is a plant. Duane considers himself a JW successor. Both are adamant in their views. Both are firm HBs.
Who will win? Is Duane the secret love-child of Jack White? Is David more perceptive and about to blow Jack's CIA cover of more than 40 years? Find out on "The Young and the Witless".
Hi Duane!
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Jan 4, 2008 4:54:05 GMT -4
I was pleasantly surprised when David C made a complete about turn on Jack White's "mystery object on Apollo 17". After calling me a liar for saying it was a partial bootprint, he finally changed his mind when the evidence was presented to him very clearly in a rather neat GIF by TNT. After looking at another JW study, he was immediately labelled as a plant, put there to weaken the HB position.
You couldn't make this stuff up.
He won't even entertain the idea that Jack might just be mistaken, or that he might be deliberately deceptive - nope, he's a Government plant. I think Jack is wrong, and so stubborn he simply refuses to admit it - although one or two of his studies do appear deliberately deceptive.
IMO DavidC deliberately got himself banned from UM so that he can use this as further "proof" that there is a massive Government conspiracy out to silence him. You could see it coming a mile off.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 4, 2008 10:38:53 GMT -4
he was immediately labelled as a plant, put there to weaken the HB position.
This coming from the guy who flatly rejected the existence of the South Atlantic Anomaly.
|
|