Jack White's study on anomalous shadows

[Evan Burton]

So, do we see Jack refute my evidence? Nope.

Do we see Jack withdraw his claim? Nope.

Little White lies....

[Len Colby]

On a similar note Jack, if I’m not mistaken, still stands by his claim that converging shadows are signs of multiple light sources because as his reasoning goes a single light source should produce only parallel shadows. Thus he claims moon photos with converging shadows must really have been shot in studios with multiple light sources because the sun of course is a single light source. Though it has repeatedly been explained to him that this would only be true if the objects themselves are parallel and the surface perfectly flat and he has been shown numerous sunlit photos with converging shadows refuses to admit error.

As has been pointed out by someone else (can’t remember who or I’d give him/her credit) if the photos had been shot in a studio with more than one light we would see multiple shadows, one for each light, for each object. But perhaps Jack with his years of experience in the studio knows of a way to set up multiple lights so that would produce single converging shadows. Perhaps this could be done with very carefully placed spot lights but doing so would take a good deal of effort (i.e. would have to have been done intentionally – maybe it was the whistleblowers!) and probably wouldn’t lead to an evenly lit set.

Source: http://artis.imag.fr/Research/RealTimeShadows/

So I have a challenge for Jack, produce shots similar to the Apollo ones he objects to show converging shadows but with only one shadow per object on an evenly lit set. I’ll take his failure to do so as a tact admission on his part he is unable to do so. The “I can’t post images” excuse won’t cut it because the simple procedure of posting images from free 3rd party photo hosts like photobucket.com has been explained to him several times already.

[Dave Greer]

It was a finally a sunny day in Redcar today, so I took some snaps of shadows while walking on the beach - I'll post them later.

[Dave Greer]

My study refers, of course, to UNCROPPED images. Anyone can CROP an image to

place the shadow of the photographer to one side. If the photographer is standing

erect and the camera is above his feet, then any photographer's SHADOW, by the

LAWS OF PERSPECTIVE, must always POINT TO THE CENTER BOTTOM OF THE

UNCROPPED IMAGE, leading directly to his FEET. If not, the image has been cropped

from a full image in which the shadow points correctly. It is the direction of the

shadow which matters, not the location within the image. A photographer CANNOT

STAND BESIDE HIS SHADOW unless the direction of the shadow leads to his feet.

His feet cannot be anywhere except the bottom center of the image. A very simple

principle to understand.

Jack

Jack

I took these two photos today. As requested, I was standing erect, and the camera was directly above my feet. The images haven't been cropped in any way - I have reduced their size to save bandwidth - I can mail you the originals if you'd like to examine them.

As you can clearly see, my shadow does not fall to the centre of the uncropped image. I invite your comments. If you agree that the images are genuine (and I'd stake my life on them as I took them only today!), are you willing to change your Aulis study to reflect this?

Many thanks for your time and consideration.

(Camera used was a Fuji F10, using no zoom. Orientation was portait mode).

[Dave Greer]

Here is another of Jack's Aulis studies. I'll restrict this post to addressing the issue he has highlighted in blue - differing shadow directions.

The differing shadow directions are quite normal, and can easily be recreated here on Earth. I did this myself just a couple of days ago. It was taken using a Fuji F10, no zoom. The image has not been cropped. I've used photoshop to enhance the contrast and levels to make it easier to see the shadows.

Again, I'll politely ask Jack for his comments.

[Jack White]

Here is another of Jack's Aulis studies. I'll restrict this post to addressing the issue he has highlighted in blue - differing shadow directions.

The differing shadow directions are quite normal, and can easily be recreated here on Earth. I did this myself just a couple of days ago. It was taken using a Fuji F10, no zoom. The image has not been cropped. I've used photoshop to enhance the contrast and levels to make it easier to see the shadows.

Again, I'll politely ask Jack for his comments.

Your example is not comparable to the Apollo image. The Apollo image INCLUDES THE HORIZON

and your image does NOT. The horizon is essential to a comparison. Like railroad tracks, sunrays

are parallel, and as such CAST SHADOWS THAT ARE PARALLEL. Like railroad tracks, such shadows

must follow THE LAWS OF PERSPECTIVE, and thus must all vanish to the same point on the horizon.

You never see railroad tracks going in divergent directions; the two rails converge at the horizon.

In your photo, some shadows (when extended) go to the same vanishing point as the photographer,

and SOME DO NOT. This is unlikely to happen, I think. A better experiment would be to find a long

straight road with telephone poles alongside, and photograph it when the sun is low. The road

and roadstripes will vanish to a point on the horizon. The tops and bottoms of the poles will

vanish to the same point, and the POLE SHADOWS will vanish to the same point. You will NOT have

shadows of the poles crossing the roadway in some other direction.

Jack

[Duane Daman]

Jack ... That makes perfect sense to me ... but then I am completely IGNORANT when it comes to photography .

Dave keeps asking me the same question over and over again about Neville Jones' claims of parallel shadows or sun rays being above clouds or below the clouds but I have no idea what he is asking me ... He is trying to disprove Jones claims in his article about the Apollo photography .

Didn't you address this question already ? ... And if so , why is this such an issue ?

[Jack White]

Jack ... That makes perfect sense to me ... but then I am completely IGNORANT when it comes to photography .

Dave keeps asking me the same question over and over again about Neville Jones' claims of parallel shadows or sun rays being above clouds or below the clouds but I have no idea what he is asking me ... He is trying to disprove Jones claims in his article about the Apollo photography .

Didn't you address this question already ? ... And if so , why is this such an issue ?

Duane...yes, I addressed it already. The things that "look like sunrays" coming from behind

clouds are actually SHADOWS of the clouds upon atmospheric particles in the air. Viewed

from a close perspective (compared to the sun), the close clouds cast shadows that are

true to the laws of perspective. It is a false analogy to call this phenomenon SUNRAYS.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Jack ... That makes perfect sense to me ... but then I am completely IGNORANT when it comes to photography .

Dave keeps asking me the same question over and over again about Neville Jones' claims of parallel shadows or sun rays being above clouds or below the clouds but I have no idea what he is asking me ... He is trying to disprove Jones claims in his article about the Apollo photography .

Didn't you address this question already ? ... And if so , why is this such an issue ?

Duane...yes, I addressed it already. The things that "look like sunrays" coming from behind

clouds are actually SHADOWS of the clouds upon atmospheric particles in the air. Viewed

from a close perspective (compared to the sun), the close clouds cast shadows that are

true to the laws of perspective. It is a false analogy to call this phenomenon SUNRAYS.

Jack

Back up the bus there Jcack, its not the SHADOWS you are seeing, ITS THE SUNLIGHT! AS usual you have it totally backwards.

[Dave Greer]

Your example is not comparable to the Apollo image. The Apollo image INCLUDES THE HORIZON

and your image does NOT. The horizon is essential to a comparison. Like railroad tracks, sunrays

are parallel, and as such CAST SHADOWS THAT ARE PARALLEL. Like railroad tracks, such shadows

must follow THE LAWS OF PERSPECTIVE, and thus must all vanish to the same point on the horizon.

You never see railroad tracks going in divergent directions; the two rails converge at the horizon.

In your photo, some shadows (when extended) go to the same vanishing point as the photographer,

and SOME DO NOT. This is unlikely to happen, I think. A better experiment would be to find a long

straight road with telephone poles alongside, and photograph it when the sun is low. The road

and roadstripes will vanish to a point on the horizon. The tops and bottoms of the poles will

vanish to the same point, and the POLE SHADOWS will vanish to the same point. You will NOT have

shadows of the poles crossing the roadway in some other direction.

Jack

Jack

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I believe you are completely wrong about needing the horizon in the image as a comparison, but nonetheless here is another photo taken on the same day, which does include the horizon. No cropping, just resized for the forum, and levels changed to enhance the shadows.

You state that in my original photo, some shadows (extended) go to the same vahishing point as the photographer, and some don't - you then claim this is unlikely! Well, I took these photos just a couple of days ago, you can even have copies of the high resolution (2848x2136) originals if you wish. Or, you could recreate the scene yourself if you suspect me of somehow manipulating the direction of the shadows. You may think it unlikely, but it's perfectly normal when taking a picture of an imperfect scene - the beach isn't completely flat, and the rocks casting the shadows are irregular. Just like in the Apollo photos - the surface isn't completely level, it's pocked with small craters, the rocks are irregular shapes.

So, what do you make of my photo that includes the horizon?

Thanks.

[Dave Greer]

Duane / Jack / Craig

Can we keep this thread reserved for investigating Jack's studies? There's plenty of discussion re Dr Neville Jone's claims on another thread.

Cheers

[Duane Daman]

Sure thing .. I just thought I would ask Jack that question while he was here .... I thought he had answered the question before .. and he confirmed that he did .

I think if you have a polite discussion with him, instead of the typical type of lamson attacks , you will find that Jack will be more willing to discuss this with you .

Sorry for butting in .

[Craig Lamson]

Here is another of Jack's Aulis studies. I'll restrict this post to addressing the issue he has highlighted in blue - differing shadow directions.

The differing shadow directions are quite normal, and can easily be recreated here on Earth. I did this myself just a couple of days ago. It was taken using a Fuji F10, no zoom. The image has not been cropped. I've used photoshop to enhance the contrast and levels to make it easier to see the shadows.

Again, I'll politely ask Jack for his comments.

Your example is not comparable to the Apollo image. The Apollo image INCLUDES THE HORIZON

and your image does NOT. The horizon is essential to a comparison. Like railroad tracks, sunrays

are parallel, and as such CAST SHADOWS THAT ARE PARALLEL. Like railroad tracks, such shadows

must follow THE LAWS OF PERSPECTIVE, and thus must all vanish to the same point on the horizon.

You never see railroad tracks going in divergent directions; the two rails converge at the horizon.

In your photo, some shadows (when extended) go to the same vanishing point as the photographer,

and SOME DO NOT. This is unlikely to happen, I think. A better experiment would be to find a long

straight road with telephone poles alongside, and photograph it when the sun is low. The road

and roadstripes will vanish to a point on the horizon. The tops and bottoms of the poles will

vanish to the same point, and the POLE SHADOWS will vanish to the same point. You will NOT have

shadows of the poles crossing the roadway in some other direction.

Jack

You REALLY don't undersrtand any of this do you Jack?

Your statement about needing the horizon is simply a strawman. You should know better.

Daves image is a great comparison to your Apollo sample. In both images the shadows are parallel. If you could view these scenes from directly above thats exactly what you would see.

What is causing the shadow to APPEAR not to be parallel is a combination of perspective, viewing angle and the actual SHAPE of the objects casting the shadows. In the Apollo image we also have to include changes in the landscape.

To take this one step further, we can do a vanishing point analysis. Joe Durnavich did exactly that to one of your "studies" that claimed non-parallel shadows. What he found was that the shadows did indeed trace to a common vanishing point. You were proven wrong.

His study can be found here: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/images/vpajw1.jpg

The discussion here: http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...5198&page=3

Bottom line is you have simply shown your ignorance about the properties of light and shadow.

BTW, your suggestion that a road and phone pole be used as a test stinks. Phone poles are almost never vertical, the lean all over the place. Daves test worked just perfectly.

Oh, and how do you explain the non -parallel shadows in the Dorman Frame you had posted over on the JFK Forum?

Note: The red lines are Joe's VPA and show the shadows all converge on a single vanishing point.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

lamson , the bad boy of 'Bad Astronomy' says to Jack ...

"Bottom line is you have simply shown your IGNORANCE about the properties of light and shadow."

Jack , a polite and honorable man says nothing to the flame baiting xxxxx, lamson.

I do believe the web site called 'Bad Astronomy' should change it's name to 'Bad Manners' .... especially after reading it's typical member's typical hateful comments .

I also believe that flame baiting trolls like lamson and colby should always post their insulting comments with the warning "xxxxx ALERT" at the top of their posts , so we will know not to bother to read their nonsense .

[Len Colby]

Jack frequently labels those he disagrees with as "ignorant" the polite an honrable Jack White uses words like asshole and goon to describe them as well. In case you missed it Jack started a thread in which he declared that calling someone ignorant isn't a personal attack and that people who think it is are ignorant and uneducated