Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jack White's study on anomalous shadows


Dave Greer
 Share

Recommended Posts

For those of you who are unfamiliar, Jack White has posted several studies over at www.aulis.com, purporting to cast doubt over the veracity o the Apollo photographic record.

Here is one such study (I'm sure Jack won't mind me posting it).

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/shadowstudy.jpg

shadowstudy.jpg

Jack is saying that photographs such as this one shown below, are impossible as the shadow must fall to the bottom centre.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5961.jpg

AS11-40-5961_t.jpg

Jack, you have stated previously that where you are shown to be wrong in any of your studies you will gladly withdraw your claim.

Here is a selection of photos I Googled in a few seconds which show your claim to be wrong. It is also very simple and easy to disprove your claim by going outside with a digital camera on a sunny day, and taking some photographs.

story.jpg

shadow.jpg

IMG_2707.jpg

My question to you Jack, is will you withdraw your claim and get Aulis to remove this study from their website?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I wouldn't expect it; I already covered that one:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...5911&st=30#

Took photos showing the absurdity of Jack's claims, urged people to try it for themselves... but in Jack's world, apparently physics and optics are not the same as the world everyone else lives in.

He still hasn't withdrawn the claim; just another example of his intellectual dishonesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

It's been nearly a month and as expected, no comment from Jack.

2. Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Jack claims make sense when using a camera with a flash or outdoor midday pictures and I think thats the point here: the shadows are long like the sun is low in the sky (or in the case of the pics, the spot light) but since the moon doesnt rotate to give a sunrise sunset the face of the moon should be in permanent midday with some variation due to the rocking motion of the moons phases , I dont know what the position of the moon was in relation to the sun when these pics were taken but I know that all the shadows on the moon are long when they should be much shorter. If the shadows were long on all the moon missions that means that all the missions landed during the same lunar phase and quite close to the terminater, if not there is no other explanation for it: the shots are fake. I can see exactly the point Jack was making here, why cant you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Jack claims make sense when using a camera with a flash or outdoor midday pictures and I think thats the point here: the shadows are long like the sun is low in the sky (or in the case of the pics, the spot light) but since the moon doesnt rotate to give a sunrise sunset the face of the moon should be in permanent midday with some variation due to the rocking motion of the moons phases , I dont know what the position of the moon was in relation to the sun when these pics were taken but I know that all the shadows on the moon are long when they should be much shorter. If the shadows were long on all the moon missions that means that all the missions landed during the same lunar phase and quite close to the terminater, if not there is no other explanation for it: the shots are fake. I can see exactly the point Jack was making here, why cant you?

Steven-

You've gotten the basic science wrong. The surface of the moon experiences a "day" just as we do here on earth. A lunar day is approximately 29.5 days, meaning any given point on the surface will experience approximately 14.75 days of sunlight and 14.75 days of darkness. See this wiki entry.

The landing missions were all scheduled to land during the early lunar morning, near sunrise IIRC, so that when landing, they would have the sun to their back and the shadows of craters and rocks would be more visible.

Anyway, that has nothing to do with Jack's argument. Jack believes that for all of the pictures, the shadow of the astronaut should ALWAYS begin at the bottom center of each frame. The position of the sun has no basis in his argument, just as his argument has no basis in reality, as Dave’s examples showed a month ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Steven

Missed your reply the first time round, but I'll respond to your post now - Jack may be willing to clarify, defend or withdraw his his claims.

I think Jack claims make sense when using a camera with a flash or outdoor midday pictures and I think thats the point here: the shadows are long like the sun is low in the sky (or in the case of the pics, the spot light)

Jack is stating that the shadow cast by the photographer should fall to the "bottom centre" of the frame - I have posted counter-evidence to support my suggestion that he is wrong about this claim. Jack doesn't mention anything to do with shadows being long due to a low lighting angle.

but since the moon doesnt rotate to give a sunrise sunset the face of the moon should be in permanent midday with some variation due to the rocking motion of the moons phases
Can you clarify exactly what you mean here? The moon does indeed rotate, approximately once every 29 days (hence the same side of the moon points toward the earth). And the sun does rise and set on the moon... how else do you explain the difference between a full moon, waxing moon, waning, new moon? The terminator is moving across the moon's surface: hence an observer on the moon sees the sun rising and setting. (I think you may be confusing the position of the Sun in the lunar sky with the position of the Earth).
I dont know what the position of the moon was in relation to the sun when these pics were taken but I know that all the shadows on the moon are long when they should be much shorter.

Steven, you can't have it both ways! Firstly you admit you don't know the position of the moon relative to the sun when the pictures were taken, then you claim the shadows should be much shorter. Your claim makes no sense.

If the shadows were long on all the moon missions that means that all the missions landed during the same lunar phase
Incorrect. It means they landed during the lunar morning, with the Sun low in the lunar sky - which they did. (From memory, lunar mornings were chosen so that the heating effect of the Sun would be reduced, and shadows cast by surface features such as craters would be a visual aid to landing the LM.
and quite close to the terminater

Since the Apollo missions all landed during the lunar morning, it follows that they would have landed close to the terminator. (I don't have the actual distances, but I would guess at the order of a few tens of kilometers away).

if not there is no other explanation for it: the shots are fake.
Since they did, this can't be seen as evidence for a faked moon landing.
I can see exactly the point Jack was making here, why cant you?

I can see the point he is trying to make very well - not only is his point wrong, but your argument has no relevance to Jack's claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steven

Missed your reply the first time round, but I'll respond to your post now - Jack may be willing to clarify, defend or withdraw his his claims.

I think Jack claims make sense when using a camera with a flash or outdoor midday pictures and I think thats the point here: the shadows are long like the sun is low in the sky (or in the case of the pics, the spot light)

Jack is stating that the shadow cast by the photographer should fall to the "bottom centre" of the frame - I have posted counter-evidence to support my suggestion that he is wrong about this claim. Jack doesn't mention anything to do with shadows being long due to a low lighting angle.

but since the moon doesnt rotate to give a sunrise sunset the face of the moon should be in permanent midday with some variation due to the rocking motion of the moons phases
Can you clarify exactly what you mean here? The moon does indeed rotate, approximately once every 29 days (hence the same side of the moon points toward the earth). And the sun does rise and set on the moon... how else do you explain the difference between a full moon, waxing moon, waning, new moon? The terminator is moving across the moon's surface: hence an observer on the moon sees the sun rising and setting. (I think you may be confusing the position of the Sun in the lunar sky with the position of the Earth).
I dont know what the position of the moon was in relation to the sun when these pics were taken but I know that all the shadows on the moon are long when they should be much shorter.

Steven, you can't have it both ways! Firstly you admit you don't know the position of the moon relative to the sun when the pictures were taken, then you claim the shadows should be much shorter. Your claim makes no sense.

If the shadows were long on all the moon missions that means that all the missions landed during the same lunar phase
Incorrect. It means they landed during the lunar morning, with the Sun low in the lunar sky - which they did. (From memory, lunar mornings were chosen so that the heating effect of the Sun would be reduced, and shadows cast by surface features such as craters would be a visual aid to landing the LM.
and quite close to the terminater

Since the Apollo missions all landed during the lunar morning, it follows that they would have landed close to the terminator. (I don't have the actual distances, but I would guess at the order of a few tens of kilometers away).

if not there is no other explanation for it: the shots are fake.
Since they did, this can't be seen as evidence for a faked moon landing.
I can see exactly the point Jack was making here, why cant you?

I can see the point he is trying to make very well - not only is his point wrong, but your argument has no relevance to Jack's claims.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'm aware your study refers to uncropped images. On reflection, I have no way of proving whether the images I posted were cropped or not, I just found them on Google image search.

Can I ask what sources of evidence you would consider credible? I have taken photos myself to show this quite simple concept, though it would be redundant posting them if you're just going to accuse me of cropping them to prove a point.

How about if anyone wishing to contribute to this thread, from either side of the conspiracy theory, posts a photo. Would you consider that as enbough evidence? Do you have your own digital camera? You could use it to debunk your own theory!

To further the debate, I may as well post some of my own images. If I can't find them on my PC (don't think I saved them), then I'll wait for a nice sunny day and take some more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'm aware your study refers to uncropped images. On reflection, I have no way of proving whether the images I posted were cropped or not, I just found them on Google image search.

Can I ask what sources of evidence you would consider credible? I have taken photos myself to show this quite simple concept, though it would be redundant posting them if you're just going to accuse me of cropping them to prove a point.

How about if anyone wishing to contribute to this thread, from either side of the conspiracy theory, posts a photo. Would you consider that as enbough evidence? Do you have your own digital camera? You could use it to debunk your own theory!

To further the debate, I may as well post some of my own images. If I can't find them on my PC (don't think I saved them), then I'll wait for a nice sunny day and take some more.

Whites posting is a cop out. MANY PEOPLE have created and posted uncropped images that depict the shadow as seen in the Apollo images, which prove Whites claimis false. WHITE ALSO CLAIMS TO BE A PHOTOGRAPHER, and yet he has not completed this little experiment and post the results.

This is perhaps on of his silliest arguments and perhaps one of the easist for people to disprove by simply taking a picture.

Once more, how to take the image.

Wait until right after sunrise or before sunset, whne the angle of the light is low, about 15 degrees or so. We want long shadows.

Stand with the sun directly at your back. Using a wide angle lens, frame your image so that your shadow is cast directly in the center of the frame and with the camera mostly level, not pointing down. You want to match what Armstrong was doing. Take a picture. You now have an image that Jack White says is possible.

Now keeping your camera level, simply turn your camera to the right, until your shadow is on the left hand side of the

frame. Take another picture. AMAZING! You have just taken a picture that JACK WHITE claims is impossible! You are now a full fleged member of the moon hoax!

DO THE TEST JACK! and post the results!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'm aware your study refers to uncropped images. On reflection, I have no way of proving whether the images I posted were cropped or not, I just found them on Google image search.

Can I ask what sources of evidence you would consider credible? I have taken photos myself to show this quite simple concept, though it would be redundant posting them if you're just going to accuse me of cropping them to prove a point.

How about if anyone wishing to contribute to this thread, from either side of the conspiracy theory, posts a photo. Would you consider that as enbough evidence? Do you have your own digital camera? You could use it to debunk your own theory!

To further the debate, I may as well post some of my own images. If I can't find them on my PC (don't think I saved them), then I'll wait for a nice sunny day and take some more.

Whites posting is a cop out. MANY PEOPLE have created and posted uncropped images that depict the shadow as seen in the Apollo images, which prove Whites claimis false. WHITE ALSO CLAIMS TO BE A PHOTOGRAPHER, and yet he has not completed this little experiment and post the results.

This is perhaps on of his silliest arguments and perhaps one of the easist for people to disprove by simply taking a picture.

Once more, how to take the image.

Wait until right after sunrise or before sunset, whne the angle of the light is low, about 15 degrees or so. We want long shadows.

Stand with the sun directly at your back. Using a wide angle lens, frame your image so that your shadow is cast directly in the center of the frame and with the camera mostly level, not pointing down. You want to match what Armstrong was doing. Take a picture. You now have an image that Jack White says is possible.

Now keeping your camera level, simply turn your camera to the right, until your shadow is on the left hand side of the

frame. Take another picture. AMAZING! You have just taken a picture that JACK WHITE claims is impossible! You are now a full fleged member of the moon hoax!

DO THE TEST JACK! and post the results!

Hate to butt in, why don't you show your expertise and do the test YOURSELF, overwhelm the lurkers.... LMAO. I understand Jack can't post images so,

DO THE TEST CRAIG! and post the results!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'm aware your study refers to uncropped images. On reflection, I have no way of proving whether the images I posted were cropped or not, I just found them on Google image search.

Can I ask what sources of evidence you would consider credible? I have taken photos myself to show this quite simple concept, though it would be redundant posting them if you're just going to accuse me of cropping them to prove a point.

How about if anyone wishing to contribute to this thread, from either side of the conspiracy theory, posts a photo. Would you consider that as enbough evidence? Do you have your own digital camera? You could use it to debunk your own theory!

To further the debate, I may as well post some of my own images. If I can't find them on my PC (don't think I saved them), then I'll wait for a nice sunny day and take some more.

Whites posting is a cop out. MANY PEOPLE have created and posted uncropped images that depict the shadow as seen in the Apollo images, which prove Whites claimis false. WHITE ALSO CLAIMS TO BE A PHOTOGRAPHER, and yet he has not completed this little experiment and post the results.

This is perhaps on of his silliest arguments and perhaps one of the easist for people to disprove by simply taking a picture.

Once more, how to take the image.

Wait until right after sunrise or before sunset, whne the angle of the light is low, about 15 degrees or so. We want long shadows.

Stand with the sun directly at your back. Using a wide angle lens, frame your image so that your shadow is cast directly in the center of the frame and with the camera mostly level, not pointing down. You want to match what Armstrong was doing. Take a picture. You now have an image that Jack White says is possible.

Now keeping your camera level, simply turn your camera to the right, until your shadow is on the left hand side of the

frame. Take another picture. AMAZING! You have just taken a picture that JACK WHITE claims is impossible! You are now a full fleged member of the moon hoax!

DO THE TEST JACK! and post the results!

Hate to butt in, why don't you show your expertise and do the test YOURSELF, overwhelm the lurkers.... LMAO. I understand Jack can't post images so,

DO THE TEST CRAIG! and post the results!

Why daive, I HAVE DONE THE TEST and posted the results on this very forum. Try to pay attention. Jack can post images, IF he wanted to do so. He has been given the instructions on how to post from a a secndary source and of course he could upgrade his computer to OSX...why don't you send him an old copy of Tiger and help him out....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'm aware your study refers to uncropped images. On reflection, I have no way of proving whether the images I posted were cropped or not, I just found them on Google image search.

Can I ask what sources of evidence you would consider credible? I have taken photos myself to show this quite simple concept, though it would be redundant posting them if you're just going to accuse me of cropping them to prove a point.

How about if anyone wishing to contribute to this thread, from either side of the conspiracy theory, posts a photo. Would you consider that as enbough evidence? Do you have your own digital camera? You could use it to debunk your own theory!

To further the debate, I may as well post some of my own images. If I can't find them on my PC (don't think I saved them), then I'll wait for a nice sunny day and take some more.

Whites posting is a cop out. MANY PEOPLE have created and posted uncropped images that depict the shadow as seen in the Apollo images, which prove Whites claimis false. WHITE ALSO CLAIMS TO BE A PHOTOGRAPHER, and yet he has not completed this little experiment and post the results.

This is perhaps on of his silliest arguments and perhaps one of the easist for people to disprove by simply taking a picture.

Once more, how to take the image.

Wait until right after sunrise or before sunset, whne the angle of the light is low, about 15 degrees or so. We want long shadows.

Stand with the sun directly at your back. Using a wide angle lens, frame your image so that your shadow is cast directly in the center of the frame and with the camera mostly level, not pointing down. You want to match what Armstrong was doing. Take a picture. You now have an image that Jack White says is possible.

Now keeping your camera level, simply turn your camera to the right, until your shadow is on the left hand side of the

frame. Take another picture. AMAZING! You have just taken a picture that JACK WHITE claims is impossible! You are now a full fleged member of the moon hoax!

DO THE TEST JACK! and post the results!

Hate to butt in, why don't you show your expertise and do the test YOURSELF, overwhelm the lurkers.... LMAO. I understand Jack can't post images so,

DO THE TEST CRAIG! and post the results!

Why daive, I HAVE DONE THE TEST and posted the results on this very forum. Try to pay attention. Jack can post images, IF he wanted to do so. He has been given the instructions on how to post from a a secndary source and of course he could upgrade his computer to OSX...why don't you send him an old copy of Tiger and help him out....

well a url to your pretty images might help... and sending out a copy of Tiger is illegal, Craigster. why would I do such a thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'm aware your study refers to uncropped images. On reflection, I have no way of proving whether the images I posted were cropped or not, I just found them on Google image search.

Can I ask what sources of evidence you would consider credible? I have taken photos myself to show this quite simple concept, though it would be redundant posting them if you're just going to accuse me of cropping them to prove a point.

How about if anyone wishing to contribute to this thread, from either side of the conspiracy theory, posts a photo. Would you consider that as enbough evidence? Do you have your own digital camera? You could use it to debunk your own theory!

To further the debate, I may as well post some of my own images. If I can't find them on my PC (don't think I saved them), then I'll wait for a nice sunny day and take some more.

Whites posting is a cop out. MANY PEOPLE have created and posted uncropped images that depict the shadow as seen in the Apollo images, which prove Whites claimis false. WHITE ALSO CLAIMS TO BE A PHOTOGRAPHER, and yet he has not completed this little experiment and post the results.

This is perhaps on of his silliest arguments and perhaps one of the easist for people to disprove by simply taking a picture.

Once more, how to take the image.

Wait until right after sunrise or before sunset, whne the angle of the light is low, about 15 degrees or so. We want long shadows.

Stand with the sun directly at your back. Using a wide angle lens, frame your image so that your shadow is cast directly in the center of the frame and with the camera mostly level, not pointing down. You want to match what Armstrong was doing. Take a picture. You now have an image that Jack White says is possible.

Now keeping your camera level, simply turn your camera to the right, until your shadow is on the left hand side of the

frame. Take another picture. AMAZING! You have just taken a picture that JACK WHITE claims is impossible! You are now a full fleged member of the moon hoax!

DO THE TEST JACK! and post the results!

Hate to butt in, why don't you show your expertise and do the test YOURSELF, overwhelm the lurkers.... LMAO. I understand Jack can't post images so,

DO THE TEST CRAIG! and post the results!

Why daive, I HAVE DONE THE TEST and posted the results on this very forum. Try to pay attention. Jack can post images, IF he wanted to do so. He has been given the instructions on how to post from a a secndary source and of course he could upgrade his computer to OSX...why don't you send him an old copy of Tiger and help him out....

well a url to your pretty images might help... and sending out a copy of Tiger is illegal, Craigster. why would I do such a thing?

It been long time ago and the images here have been dumped to free up my upload space. You should have paid attention while it was up. I'm not suggesting you copy Tiger but rather take a regestered one (and I'm sure you have a few) disable the activation and send it to Jack, That is not illegal at all. Of course If Jack was intereserd he could upgrade on his own dime. OSX will run on his old G3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said previously - I have already taken those photographs show Jack is wrong.

Let me state quite clearly: these images have not been cropped or altered (except for any resizing done by the forum software, not by me).

Jack_shadow_wrong_1.JPG

jack_shadow_wrong_2.JPG

jack_shadow_wrong_3.JPG

jack_shadow_wrong_4.JPG

If Jack would like to accuse me of faking these images in any way, he should confront me publicly.

If not, he should withdraw his claim.

As always, I am not holding my breath.

2. Any time it can be proved that one of my studies is wrong, I am more eager

than anyone to acknowledge AND CORRECT IT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...