Here it is:I used the hires version from ALSJ. The shadow of the pole is plainly visible without any adjustment.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/3u0io.jpg)
From a higher res version
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/40/5875.jpg
I tweaked levels and sharpened to make it stand out more, but you can see it without it.
You guys have good eyes, I never would have seen that!Indeed.
Jason is correct. I'd offer a pragmatic argument that pertains to proponents of the hoax claiming missing shadows or anomalies in the photos.Yes, but... The reasoning, if such it can be called, runs that this 'proves' multiple light sources and hence a studio environment. This entirely ignores the absence of the multiple shadows necessitated by such an arrangement, but who ever said hoax claims had to make sense?
How does a 'missing' shadow prove that this was shot on Earth? Surely the same problem would be arise if the photograph was taken on Earth or the moon. If you were hoaxing it, wouldn't you just 'take the shot?'
I've never understood a single shadow argument from the view of the intial premise being flawed.
Yes, but... The reasoning, if such it can be called, runs that this 'proves' multiple light sources and hence a studio environment. This entirely ignores the absence of the multiple shadows necessitated by such an arrangement, but who ever said hoax claims had to make sense?
Yes, but... The reasoning, if such it can be called, runs that this 'proves' multiple light sources and hence a studio environment. This entirely ignores the absence of the multiple shadows necessitated by such an arrangement, but who ever said hoax claims had to make sense?
I've seen lots of missing shadow arguments put forward without the multiple light source argument invoked.
At times it seems that the CTs claim an anomaly in every photograph due to some arbitrary condition they apply, which makes their whole anomalous photograph argument fall down. That's why I argue 'why didn't they just shoot it?'
When one looks at all their arguments - whether it's no stars, missing or peculiar shadows, peculiar reflections, fill lighting, fall off, a moving Venus, strange background perspectives, C-rocks - I ask why would they get different results on Earth compared to the moon for some of their claims?
The anomalous photograph argument is absurd as they have tried to apply it across the entirety of the Apollo record, often invoking special arguments for different aspects of their claim, and at times contradicting themselves. That's my point.
Yes, but you aren't trying to sell DVD's, magazines or personal appearances.
True. The CT proponents will often apply self contradictory arguments to different photos and arguments which do not apply regardless of where exactly, moon or earth, the photos were taken. As far as I can make out (and it's a stretch) the claim with this particular image is that the "fakers" forgot to add the flag shadow thus proving "fakery".Yes, but... The reasoning, if such it can be called, runs that this 'proves' multiple light sources and hence a studio environment. This entirely ignores the absence of the multiple shadows necessitated by such an arrangement, but who ever said hoax claims had to make sense?
I've seen lots of missing shadow arguments put forward without the multiple light source argument invoked.
At times it seems that the CTs claim an anomaly in every photograph due to some arbitrary condition they apply, which makes their whole anomalous photograph argument fall down. That's why I argue 'why didn't they just shoot it?'
When one looks at all their arguments - whether it's no stars, missing or peculiar shadows, peculiar reflections, fill lighting, fall off, a moving Venus, strange background perspectives, C-rocks - I ask why would they get different results on Earth compared to the moon for some of their claims?
The anomalous photograph argument is absurd as they have tried to apply it across the entirety of the Apollo record, often invoking special arguments for different aspects of their claim, and at times contradicting themselves. That's my point.
True. The CT proponents will often apply self contradictory arguments to different photos and arguments which do not apply regardless of where exactly, moon or earth, the photos were taken. As far as I can make out (and it's a stretch) the claim with this particular image is that the "fakers" forgot to add the flag shadow thus proving "fakery".
Where, exactly, does this leave the claimant? Were some, all or none of the shadows faked? Why would that be necessary? Or even desired? Why would the supposed "fakers" fake any shadows at all? Why not simply photograph the shadows as they were? How would the supposedly godlike "fakers" incompetently miss such a thing?
And so on. The whole notion is more full of holes than a Swiss cheese.
A well thought out reply. I (and others) have conveyed these points before, and coupled with all the other aspects of Apollo, the lack of continuity errors across a vast record lays waste to their argument. For me, once the C-rock was thrown into the mix, their game was rumbled. I mean, what utter numb skull thought they could pass that idea off as a starter. It also takes a real clown to keep that one alive and produce YouTube videos with dramatisations of the C-rock discovery.The good old C-rock. I have never been able to fathom which is the more idiotic. Those who propose it or those who swallow it wholesale.
The good old C-rock. I have never been able to fathom which is the more idiotic. Those who propose it or those who swallow it wholesale.
I understand that Ralph Rene was not that complimentary of Bill Kaysing.
If I'm the source for that understanding then the target of Rene's vehemence was David Percy, whom Rene accused of stealing his material and making money off of it -- money that he says rightly should have gone to him. It went so far as Rene refusing to appear on any conspiracy program in which Percy was involved.
This is new to me. Was Ralph Rene a little disparaging towards Bill Kaysing's intial manuscript, feeling it could be bettered with some 'proper' science?
This is new to me. Was Ralph Rene a little disparaging towards Bill Kaysing's intial manuscript, feeling it could be bettered with some 'proper' science?
Yes, but I gather Rene held enough respect for Kaysing to suggest only that his material needed improvement. Appropriate, since Kaysing came first and it can be argued Rene stole much of that material. But Rene's attitude toward Percy was one of unbridled vitriol, and specifically directed at Percy's alleged appropriation of the market for Rene's book.
For goodness sake, how do you take that picture, on the Moon or on Earth, with literally no shadow, if everything else has shadows?
Presumably by manipulation of the photo - inserting the flagpole into the picture, but not a shadow.
And HBs do like the idea of photo manipulation - such as with the disappearing crosshairs - so the idea of sticking a flagpole into a picture would make sense to them.
The lack of a shadow would be, to David Percy, one of those whistleblows by some NASA insider trying to get a message out.
Hello. Can someone explain why I dont see the shadow of the flag and the pole in this photo?
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/HR.jpg)