Jack White's study on anomalous shadows

[Craig Lamson]

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 .

So tell me Duane, since Jack is totally wrong on how light and shadow work, as are you btw as shown in the Debunking Duane part 2 thread, what term do you suggest I use to describe his lack of knowlege in this matter.

Of course Jack has nothing he can say but, I was wrong. He choses to say nothing becauses to admit error, which is not intellectually honest.

I'm sure Jack has no problem with the term ignorant, he likes to use it himself.

And I'm not sure I would use the words polite nor honorable to describe Jack.

BTW, I see your new rule to ignore my postings lasted what...8 hours? Sheesh.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

xxxxx ALERT !

[Craig Lamson]

xxxxx ALERT !

What, you can't supply and answer AGAIN? Why am I not suprised.

Oh and I see Jack can't supply an answer either as he was just here as well.

You ever gonna quit hiding and let your name be seen when you are here? You ashamed or something?

Edited February 3, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

Yeah, I'm ashamed of the fact that I ever replied to any of your hateful flame baiting posts.

Jack already did give his answer ... You just didn't happen to like it .... You just don't happen to like anything about him or me because of our opinions about Apollo ...

We both happen to believe it was a hoax and neither one of us have any doubt that the Apollo photos are cheesy moon set fakes .... Millions of people know this.

And no amount of games you play on this forum is going to change that fact.

[Craig Lamson]

Yeah, I'm ashamed of the fact that I ever replied to any of your hateful flame baiting posts.

Jack already did give his answer ... You just didn't happen to like it .... You just don't happen to like anything about him or me because of our opinions about Apollo ...

We both happen to believe it was a hoax and neither one of us have any doubt that the Apollo photos are cheesy moon set fakes .... Millions of people know this.

And no amount of games you play on this forum is going to change that fact.

No Jack has not responded. He posted a strawman in the hopes of defusing the truth. Too bad for him the fuse went out when Dave posed his second image and I posted the VPA of Jacks original claim. No he CAN'T reply, unles he want to admit defeat. His claims lay in tatters on the floor, along with his reputation.

Heres a news flash for you Dunne, this is not about 'opinion" nor is it about "belief" Its about hard scientific fact. There is no midlle ground, there is no gray. Its a simple case of black and white, right and wrong....and Jack (and you by extention because you are nodding your head in agreement even though you don't understand the argument) is simply WRONG!

[Jack White]

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.

Thanks for the very good photo which EXACTLY ILLUSTRATES HOW VANISHING POINTS WORK!

The only thing obviously wrong was the red arrows you placed on the image. I doubt that you

were trying to deceive; you just did not know how to draw the lines.

Using the photographer image as an excellent starting point, I drew lines to the horizon through

all easily discernable shadows, and given that the ground may not be perfectly level, all obeyed

the laws of perspective within an acceptable tolerance. The main anomaly appearsin the lower

left where a stick is casting a shadow in another direction...BUT WE DO NOT KNOW THE SHAPE

AND ANGLE TO THE GROUND OF THE STICK. Since the stick clearly is not vertical, it is hard

to say where its shadow should point. Another problem is that you have identified several

dark spots near the water as shadows, when in fact they are unidentifiable.

I would post my analysis of the photo, but I can no longer post images here because my

Mac is too old for the new software.

I appreciate the photo, which illustrates a vanishing point well. I would appreciate a version

without the red arrows, which were poorly placed.

Jack

[Jack White]

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.

Thanks for the very good photo which EXACTLY ILLUSTRATES HOW VANISHING POINTS WORK!

The only thing obviously wrong was the red arrows you placed on the image. I doubt that you

were trying to deceive; you just did not know how to draw the lines.

Using the photographer image as an excellent starting point, I drew lines to the horizon through

all easily discernable shadows, and given that the ground may not be perfectly level, all obeyed

the laws of perspective within an acceptable tolerance. The main anomaly appears in the lower

left where a stick is casting a shadow in another direction...BUT WE DO NOT KNOW THE SHAPE

AND ANGLE TO THE GROUND OF THE STICK. Since the stick clearly is not vertical, it is hard

to say where its shadow should point. Another problem is that you have identified several

dark spots near the water as shadows, when in fact they are unidentifiable.

I would post my analysis of the photo, but I can no longer post images here because my

Mac is too old for the new software.

I appreciate the photo, which illustrates a vanishing point well. I would appreciate a version

without the red arrows, which were poorly placed. I will draw some lines on it and maybe

I can get someone to post it here. I may even add it to my Aulis study showing how

perspective really works. Good photo. Thanks.

Jack

[Duane Daman]

You're right lamson there is no middle ground ..... and here's the reason why .

No matter how many games you play here you won't change the FACT that Apollo was HOAX !

Yes, it's my belief , my opinion and it's is also a FACT .

And believe it or not , this has already been proven to those who aren't as closed minded and as blind as you are.

[Craig Lamson]

You're right lamson there is no middle ground ..... and here's the reason why .

No matter how many games you play here you won't change the FACT that Apollo was HOAX !

Yes, it's my belief , my opinion and it's is also a FACT .

And believe it or not , this has already been proven to those who aren't as closed minded and as blind as you are.

We can discount your "belief" and we can discount your "opinion" and we are dealing with your "facts'. What has been shown is that your "facts" are anything but. Adn thats the problems. You can't rebut it, so you are left with spewing 'opinion" and "belief" neither of which carries any weight.

So keep bringing on your "facts". they are highly amusing!

[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.

Thanks for the very good photo which EXACTLY ILLUSTRATES HOW VANISHING POINTS WORK!

The only thing obviously wrong was the red arrows you placed on the image. I doubt that you

were trying to deceive; you just did not know how to draw the lines.

Using the photographer image as an excellent starting point, I drew lines to the horizon through

all easily discernable shadows, and given that the ground may not be perfectly level, all obeyed

the laws of perspective within an acceptable tolerance. The main anomaly appears in the lower

left where a stick is casting a shadow in another direction...BUT WE DO NOT KNOW THE SHAPE

AND ANGLE TO THE GROUND OF THE STICK. Since the stick clearly is not vertical, it is hard

to say where its shadow should point. Another problem is that you have identified several

dark spots near the water as shadows, when in fact they are unidentifiable.

I would post my analysis of the photo, but I can no longer post images here because my

Mac is too old for the new software.

I appreciate the photo, which illustrates a vanishing point well. I would appreciate a version

without the red arrows, which were poorly placed. I will draw some lines on it and maybe

I can get someone to post it here. I may even add it to my Aulis study showing how

perspective really works. Good photo. Thanks.

Jack

Jack

The photo shows the phenomenon that you question with your Apollo studies. Stating that a horizon was necessary for a comparison was something of a strawman.

Anyone with a camera can easily recreate the scene you claim is evidence of fakery. However, I said you could have the original, and you requested it, I'll email it to you - do you still have the flash.net address? If not please let me know your current address (I don't want to paste it here for bandwidth reasons).

The arrows I've drawn may not be 100% congruent with the direction of shadows (they were done by eye), but I think they're close - certainly as accurate as the blue arrows in your photo.

Incidentally, you may have missed the photos I posted rebutting your assertion about a photographers shadow always falling to the bottom centre - much appreciated if you could look at that one again.

Cheers

[Jack White]

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.

Thanks for the very good photo which EXACTLY ILLUSTRATES HOW VANISHING POINTS WORK!

The only thing obviously wrong was the red arrows you placed on the image. I doubt that you

were trying to deceive; you just did not know how to draw the lines.

Using the photographer image as an excellent starting point, I drew lines to the horizon through

all easily discernable shadows, and given that the ground may not be perfectly level, all obeyed

the laws of perspective within an acceptable tolerance. The main anomaly appears in the lower

left where a stick is casting a shadow in another direction...BUT WE DO NOT KNOW THE SHAPE

AND ANGLE TO THE GROUND OF THE STICK. Since the stick clearly is not vertical, it is hard

to say where its shadow should point. Another problem is that you have identified several

dark spots near the water as shadows, when in fact they are unidentifiable.

I would post my analysis of the photo, but I can no longer post images here because my

Mac is too old for the new software.

I appreciate the photo, which illustrates a vanishing point well. I would appreciate a version

without the red arrows, which were poorly placed. I will draw some lines on it and maybe

I can get someone to post it here. I may even add it to my Aulis study showing how

perspective really works. Good photo. Thanks.

Jack

As I said, thanks for your helpful illustration of perspective of shadows.

Now, if you would do me another favor. Next time you are on the beach

with your camera at sunset (sunrise?), do this experiment. With the sun

BEHIND you and holding the camera to your eye, standing erect, PLEASE

POINT THE CAMERA DOWN ENOUGH TO TAKE A PHOTO OF YOUR SHADOW

WHICH INCLUDES YOUR FEET IN THE IMAGE. You will not be able to get

the entire shadow in the photo, but do it anyway; from the same stance,

also take another photo of your shadow with your camera aimed to include

the horizon. Let us see your results. Thank you for being so helpful.

Jack

[Jack White]

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.

Thanks for the very good photo which EXACTLY ILLUSTRATES HOW VANISHING POINTS WORK!

The only thing obviously wrong was the red arrows you placed on the image. I doubt that you

were trying to deceive; you just did not know how to draw the lines.

Using the photographer image as an excellent starting point, I drew lines to the horizon through

all easily discernable shadows, and given that the ground may not be perfectly level, all obeyed

the laws of perspective within an acceptable tolerance. The main anomaly appears in the lower

left where a stick is casting a shadow in another direction...BUT WE DO NOT KNOW THE SHAPE

AND ANGLE TO THE GROUND OF THE STICK. Since the stick clearly is not vertical, it is hard

to say where its shadow should point. Another problem is that you have identified several

dark spots near the water as shadows, when in fact they are unidentifiable.

I would post my analysis of the photo, but I can no longer post images here because my

Mac is too old for the new software.

I appreciate the photo, which illustrates a vanishing point well. I would appreciate a version

without the red arrows, which were poorly placed. I will draw some lines on it and maybe

I can get someone to post it here. I may even add it to my Aulis study showing how

perspective really works. Good photo. Thanks.

Jack

Jack

The photo shows the phenomenon that you question with your Apollo studies. Stating that a horizon was necessary for a comparison was something of a strawman.

Anyone with a camera can easily recreate the scene you claim is evidence of fakery. However, I said you could have the original, and you requested it, I'll email it to you - do you still have the flash.net address? If not please let me know your current address (I don't want to paste it here for bandwidth reasons).

The arrows I've drawn may not be 100% congruent with the direction of shadows (they were done by eye), but I think they're close - certainly as accurate as the blue arrows in your photo.

Incidentally, you may have missed the photos I posted rebutting your assertion about a photographers shadow always falling to the bottom centre - much appreciated if you could look at that one again.

Cheers

My email address is jwjfk@flash.net, but I think you should post it on the forum.

Everyone interested should be able to do this for themselves if they want.

By the way, I am aware of many photographic tricks.

See my later message regarding the origin of shadows, and I would appreciate

you performing the experiment I requested. Here is what your photos will show:

1. The shadows of your legs will originate AT YOUR FEET, which I have asked

you photograph.

2. If you stand erect with your head above your feet and the camera at your eye

as I requested AND PHOTOGRAPH YOUR FEET, your feet will will be at the bottom

CENTER of the UNCROPPED PHOTO...because the camera is centered on the scene

above your feet.

3. The shadow of your legs, torso and head will follow the line of perspective

to the horizon.

I expect you to be honorable in this test and not attempt to hold the camera

at some oblique angle to make the shadows go sideways. The object is to

capture the shadow with the sun DIRECTLY behind you. It is impossible to

photograph your shadow and not have it connect to your feet. Thanks for your

cooperation.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Thanks for the very good photo which EXACTLY ILLUSTRATES HOW VANISHING POINTS WORK!

The only thing obviously wrong was the red arrows you placed on the image. I doubt that you

were trying to deceive; you just did not know how to draw the lines.

Using the photographer image as an excellent starting point, I drew lines to the horizon through

all easily discernable shadows, and given that the ground may not be perfectly level, all obeyed

the laws of perspective within an acceptable tolerance. The main anomaly appears in the lower

left where a stick is casting a shadow in another direction...BUT WE DO NOT KNOW THE SHAPE

AND ANGLE TO THE GROUND OF THE STICK. Since the stick clearly is not vertical, it is hard

to say where its shadow should point. Another problem is that you have identified several

dark spots near the water as shadows, when in fact they are unidentifiable.

I would post my analysis of the photo, but I can no longer post images here because my

Mac is too old for the new software.

I appreciate the photo, which illustrates a vanishing point well. I would appreciate a version

without the red arrows, which were poorly placed. I will draw some lines on it and maybe

I can get someone to post it here. I may even add it to my Aulis study showing how

perspective really works. Good photo. Thanks.

Jack

As I said, thanks for your helpful illustration of perspective of shadows.

Now, if you would do me another favor. Next time you are on the beach

with your camera at sunset (sunrise?), do this experiment. With the sun

BEHIND you and holding the camera to your eye, standing erect, PLEASE

POINT THE CAMERA DOWN ENOUGH TO TAKE A PHOTO OF YOUR SHADOW

WHICH INCLUDES YOUR FEET IN THE IMAGE. You will not be able to get

the entire shadow in the photo, but do it anyway; from the same stance,

also take another photo of your shadow with your camera aimed to include

the horizon. Let us see your results. Thank you for being so helpful.

Jack

A few questions Jack. You claim that the shadows in Daves horizon image all fall as they should, that they are palallel with respect to perspective WHEN YOU DRAW THE LINES...is that correct? Your claim is that Dave cannot correctly draw lines indicating the direction of shadows? Second you have still failed to deal with this first image. Regardless of the fact that the horizon is missing, the shadows clearly are not parallel with repect to perspective. Is it your claim that the laws of perspective and parallel light rays are null and void when the horizon is no included in the image? Daves first images shows many differnt shadow directions. How can you explain this?

Finally, you have failed to deal with Daves offset shadow image. You claim it is impossible for the shadow of photographer with the sun behind his back to be anywhere in the photograph but the center of the image. Is this a correct statement? If so how do you explain the shadow in Dave image?

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Thanks for the very good photo which EXACTLY ILLUSTRATES HOW VANISHING POINTS WORK!

The only thing obviously wrong was the red arrows you placed on the image. I doubt that you

were trying to deceive; you just did not know how to draw the lines.

Using the photographer image as an excellent starting point, I drew lines to the horizon through

all easily discernable shadows, and given that the ground may not be perfectly level, all obeyed

the laws of perspective within an acceptable tolerance. The main anomaly appears in the lower

left where a stick is casting a shadow in another direction...BUT WE DO NOT KNOW THE SHAPE

AND ANGLE TO THE GROUND OF THE STICK. Since the stick clearly is not vertical, it is hard

to say where its shadow should point. Another problem is that you have identified several

dark spots near the water as shadows, when in fact they are unidentifiable.

I would post my analysis of the photo, but I can no longer post images here because my

Mac is too old for the new software.

I appreciate the photo, which illustrates a vanishing point well. I would appreciate a version

without the red arrows, which were poorly placed. I will draw some lines on it and maybe

I can get someone to post it here. I may even add it to my Aulis study showing how

perspective really works. Good photo. Thanks.

Jack

Jack

The photo shows the phenomenon that you question with your Apollo studies. Stating that a horizon was necessary for a comparison was something of a strawman.

Anyone with a camera can easily recreate the scene you claim is evidence of fakery. However, I said you could have the original, and you requested it, I'll email it to you - do you still have the flash.net address? If not please let me know your current address (I don't want to paste it here for bandwidth reasons).

The arrows I've drawn may not be 100% congruent with the direction of shadows (they were done by eye), but I think they're close - certainly as accurate as the blue arrows in your photo.

Incidentally, you may have missed the photos I posted rebutting your assertion about a photographers shadow always falling to the bottom centre - much appreciated if you could look at that one again.

Cheers

My email address is jwjfk@flash.net, but I think you should post it on the forum.

Everyone interested should be able to do this for themselves if they want.

By the way, I am aware of many photographic tricks.

See my later message regarding the origin of shadows, and I would appreciate

you performing the experiment I requested. Here is what your photos will show:

1. The shadows of your legs will originate AT YOUR FEET, which I have asked

you photograph.

2. If you stand erect with your head above your feet and the camera at your eye

as I requested AND PHOTOGRAPH YOUR FEET, your feet will will be at the bottom

CENTER of the UNCROPPED PHOTO...because the camera is centered on the scene

above your feet.

3. The shadow of your legs, torso and head will follow the line of perspective

to the horizon.

I expect you to be honorable in this test and not attempt to hold the camera

at some oblique angle to make the shadows go sideways. The object is to

capture the shadow with the sun DIRECTLY behind you. It is impossible to

photograph your shadow and not have it connect to your feet. Thanks for your

cooperation.

Jack

I see you are trying to build another STRAWMAN to knock down Jack. The question at hand as posed by your 'study" is: Is it possible for the shadow of Armstrong to be real if it is located anywhere but the center of the image. You claim no, because your STRAWMAN states the the shadow must go to the photographers feet, and that a photographer cannot stand beside his shadow. This is correct BUT IT HAS NO BEARING on the issue of where the EXTENDED SHADOW OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER IS PLACED IN THE IMAGE. The shadow can AND WILL be located at the sides of the frame if the photographer simply turns his pov either right or left. This can and has been proven by emperical example by many people. That you HAVE NOT done the simple test speaks volumes. You are simply not being intellectually honest.

The correct test to check your claim that the shadow in the Armstrong image is impossible is to take a photograph just like Dave has done, and it proves your claim false. Are you ever going to be a man and admit it? Photographing a shadow of your feet is a simply strawman argument.

Added on edit.

You know whats really funny Jack, even the strawman argument you have tried to construct is wrong. If you take a picture of your shadow with the sun directly behind you that shows your feet, the shadow and your feet do NOT have to be in the center of the frame as you claim. Oh they will be if you frame the picture with your feet in the center, but by simply aiming the camera to the left, you can have your feet and the shadow in the RIGHT SIDE OF THE FRAME, or is you aim your camera right, you can have your feet and shadow on the left side of the frame! This is just too funny for words.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Dave Greer]

My email address is jwjfk@flash.net, but I think you should post it on the forum.

Everyone interested should be able to do this for themselves if they want.

By the way, I am aware of many photographic tricks.

See my later message regarding the origin of shadows, and I would appreciate

you performing the experiment I requested. Here is what your photos will show:

1. The shadows of your legs will originate AT YOUR FEET, which I have asked

you photograph.

2. If you stand erect with your head above your feet and the camera at your eye

as I requested AND PHOTOGRAPH YOUR FEET, your feet will will be at the bottom

CENTER of the UNCROPPED PHOTO...because the camera is centered on the scene

above your feet.

3. The shadow of your legs, torso and head will follow the line of perspective

to the horizon.

I expect you to be honorable in this test and not attempt to hold the camera

at some oblique angle to make the shadows go sideways. The object is to

capture the shadow with the sun DIRECTLY behind you. It is impossible to

photograph your shadow and not have it connect to your feet. Thanks for your

cooperation.

Jack

Jack

I've bent over backwards (not literally!) to be as faithful as I can to representing how I perceive your claims in the photos I've supplied. As a measure of that, I'll post not one, but two high resolution images I took. (They'll be taking up my own webspace so I may delete them before long - please feel free to download them).

You may be more interested in the second one, DSCF1487, rather than the one we are discussing (DSCF1500) - paying particular attention to the shadows of two rocks either side of the shadow of my head. They do appear to pointing in opposite directions, don't they? I can vouch for the sun being bright and the only direct light source in each scene.

Here's the link of the second beach photo I posted:-

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.greer70...ws/DSCF1500.JPG

I think this one may concern you more - check out those rocks:-

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.greer70...ws/DSCF1487.JPG

PS I'm well aware that photographing my feet will show the shadow originating from them, so no need to take that photo. Your claim was re Apollo photos that did not show the photographers feet, so what would that prove anyway? The point is, it is very easy to take a photo in which the photographers shadow does NOT fall to the bottom cente, as I've shown - hence your study saying this is an anomaly which is evidence of fakery, is false. A retraction, or clarification of your views, would be deemed honourable.

Cheers