Most of the crap on that site is stuff I refute at my site. Nobody expects either my site or this one to be comprehensive, but when all the discussion is taken together it's pretty convincing.
Basically the "recoil" site is just one long straw man argument. "They don't talk about this photo," over and over again. But in fact we've covered extensively both here and at Clavius every effect they mention -- shadow direction, parallax, crosshairs, etc. The problem is that the conspiracists don't really understand the evidence or the science, so they make the same basic mistakes a hundred times and refer to all 100 photos. If you answer the basic mistake using one photo as an example, they somehow still believe they have 99 photos that prove their point.
The point, when you get right down to it, is that conspiracy theorists are not photographic interpreters -- never have been, aren't now. They just think it's all "common sense" and proceed to make wacky, unsupportable assertions.
|