Jack White's study on anomalous shadows

[Craig Lamson]

Nice trick lamson ... You TWISTED and BENT your body around to get your shadow off to the side of these pictures ...

The apollo astronots did not do these contortions but were rather standing perfectly erect and facing forward , yet their shadows are way to the side of some of the phony Apollo photos ...

When you are standing straight , your shadow is in the CENTER of your photo !

And you have the nerve to call Jack deceptive ? .... Pretty sneaky stuff their mr. professional photographer .

Since this seems beyond you let me explain ONCE AGAIN.

Jack tried to set up a strawman...he suggested THAT IF THE PHOTOGRAPERS FEET were shown in the images, the shadows must go to the bottom center of the frame. This was deceptive on Jacks part because it has no bearing on the subject at hand...can the shadows in the apollo image really be to the side of the frame. Jack came up with this deceptive little red herring BECAUSE it had been shown emperically that the shadows as shown in the Apollo images were possilbe AND COULD be reproduced by anyone. Jack was in a bind. He had to find SOME WAY to try and save face. So he invented the "to the feet" argument. I'm not sure if JAck knows this argument is false and he is just hoping to fool the ignorant,or if he actually believes it, in which case it would be beyond the pale for someone who claims to be an expert in photography.

In any case I simply called Jack's bluff.

To show the entire photographers shadow to his feet, I needed two things. A very wide angle lens and the sun high in the sky to shorten the shadow. With both I was able to show that Jacks deceptive attempt to CHANGE THE BASIS of the arguement WAS WRONG! You can have the shadow of the photographer all the way down to his feet in EITHER corner of the frame AND in the middle depending on how you FRAME the image. In short, JACK WHITE was simply wrong once again about how a simple shadow works. AND REMEMBER NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SHADOWS IN THE APOLLO IMAGES!

Now on to the second part of my test. Yes you are correct I had to turn my upper body to frame partial shadows in the right and left side of the frames. Ita quite reasonable ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND the fact that I used the sun very high in the sky. Since the shaodow was short I NEEDED to aim the camera down quite a bit and turn my upper body a bit more than the Apollo astronauts to get the picture. However there have been many other emperical examples that look very similar to the Apollo image. In a nutshell, you are simply wrong...again.

Please retract your mistaken claim that I was being deceptive.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

No .

You are deceptive .. and bending and twisting your body around to get your shadow to the side of the photo proves that .

You and your cronies , who defend the faked Apollo photography , would do ANYTHING to try to prove Jack wrong .

This is not rocket science , it's photography and nothing is "beyond" me .... Well , except for maybe that "inverse square law thing .

But the rest of it is pretty simple really .... The Apollo photos are studio fakes .... Jack has proven this and because of this you and your Bad Astronomy friends have targeted him with your constant disinformation and unkind insults .

Isn't it great that this forum is moderated now ? .... I don't think I've been forced to read the word "ignornant" ever since they decided to clean house around here .

[Craig Lamson]

No .

You are deceptive .. and bending and twisting your body around to get your shadow to the side of the photo proves that .

You and your cronies , who defend the faked Apollo photography , would do ANYTHING to try to prove Jack wrong .

This is not rocket science , it's photography and nothing is "beyond" me .... Well , except for maybe that "inverse square law thing .

But the rest of it is pretty simple really .... The Apollo photos are studio fakes .... Jack has proven this and because of this you and your Bad Astronomy friends have targeted him with your constant disinformation and unkind insults .

Isn't it great that this forum is moderated now ? .... I don't think I've been forced to read the word "ignornant" ever since they decided to clean house around here .

Wrong agaig Duane. Nothing wrong with twisting my body, given the lens, and sun angle. Jack said something could not happen. Emperical evidence shows that it can. End of story and the end of Jack's red herring.

If you can't understand how light and shadow work, and how framing a camera works you have no business telling anyone anything photographic. Nor does Jack White. He has been shown time and time again that his "studies" violate the basics of photography. That he pretends he is still correct speak volumes. The funny thing is that Jack proves himself wrong most of the time. Not much effort required.

Nothing wrong with the word ignorant, a perfect word to describe the photographic knowlege base of a few forum members.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

The bottom line is the fact that you had to twist and bend your body around to get your shadow to the side of the photo ... and the Apollo astronots were not in this twisted position when they allegedy took these off center shadow photos on the moon ... Nor were their feet in the photos , which I think is the point that Jack is trying to make .... To get your feet in the photo , and prove that you really took these photos with your shadow to the side , you needed to contort your body .

The shadows are anomalous for this reason and were probably just superimposed into the photo , like so many other things were in the phony Apollo photos .

So it doesn't look like you have proven anything , except that your experiment turned out just the way Jack knew it would ...

[Jack White]

Nice trick lamson ... You TWISTED and BENT your body around to get your shadow off to the side of these pictures ...

The apollo astronots did not do these contortions but were rather standing perfectly erect and facing forward , yet their shadows are way to the side of some of the phony Apollo photos ...

When you are standing straight , your shadow is in the CENTER of your photo !

And you have the nerve to call Jack deceptive ? .... Pretty sneaky stuff their mr. professional photographer .

Since this seems beyond you let me explain ONCE AGAIN.

Jack tried to set up a strawman...he suggested THAT IF THE PHOTOGRAPERS FEET were shown in the images, the shadows must go to the bottom center of the frame. This was deceptive on Jacks part because it has no bearing on the subject at hand...can the shadows in the apollo image really be to the side of the frame. Jack came up with this deceptive little red herring BECAUSE it had been shown emperically that the shadows as shown in the Apollo images were possilbe AND COULD be reproduced by anyone. Jack was in a bind. He had to find SOME WAY to try and save face. So he invented the "to the feet" argument. I'm not sure if JAck knows this argument is false and he is just hoping to fool the ignorant,or if he actually believes it, in which case it would be beyond the pale for someone who claims to be an expert in photography.

In any case I simply called Jack's bluff.

To show the entire photographers shadow to his feet, I needed two things. A very wide angle lens and the sun high in the sky to shorten the shadow. With both I was able to show that Jacks deceptive attempt to CHANGE THE BASIS of the arguement WAS WRONG! You can have the shadow of the photographer all the way down to his feet in EITHER corner of the frame AND in the middle depending on how you FRAME the image. In short, JACK WHITE was simply wrong once again about how a simple shadow works. AND REMEMBER NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SHADOWS IN THE APOLLO IMAGES!

Now on to the second part of my test. Yes you are correct I had to turn my upper body to frame partial shadows in the right and left side of the frames. Ita quite reasonable ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND the fact that I used the sun very high in the sky. Since the shaodow was short I NEEDED to aim the camera down quite a bit and turn my upper body a bit more than the Apollo astronauts to get the picture. However there have been many other emperical examples that look very similar to the Apollo image. In a nutshell, you are simply wrong...again.

Please retract your mistaken claim that I was being deceptive.

I too will say that you were being deceptive. IN NO APOLLO PHOTOS WAS THE SUN HIGH IN THE

SKY...but always very low. That is deceptive. The Hasselblad cameras were attached to the chestplate

and faced straight ahead; your twisting and bending and aiming the camara to the side is deceptive.

You admit to using a very wide angle lens; not using the equivalent of the Apollo lens is deceptive.

In a nutshell, you are simply wrong...again.

Jack

[Kevin M. West]

Jack, you're the one who wanted him to get his feet in the photos, which is not what we were seeing in the apollo photos.

Here's a simple idea, I'd do it myself if i had a camera with me. Hold the camera at eye level next to a sign post or something straight that no one can accuse you of bending, and take a shot directly downsun with the shadow centered, and another with the shadow off to the side. Jack, you're a photographer, why don't you give it a try and show us the results.

[Duane Daman]

And the reason Jack wanted feet to be shown in the photos was to prove that the Apollo astronots could not have taken the off side shadow pictures without turning themselves into contortionists .

Jack and I just proved lamson wrong .... Get over it .

[Kevin M. West]

No, you didn't prove anyone wrong, so I won't get over it. The fact that Jack claims to be a photographer and knows less about perspective than I do is just mind boggling.

Here's a simple (but ugly) sketch I did in about 20 seconds that explains the whole thing. It's a top down view of the most basic aspects of this issue. In blue is the position of the photographer. In grey, his shadow. In red, the field of view of the camera. In green, where the field of view intersects the ground (the bottom edge of the photo).

You'll see that the shadow runs right to his feet in reality. But due to the field of view not reaching his feet, the shadow will be offset from center at the bottom edge of the image (the green line). And due to perspective, the shadow will run nearly parallel to the right edge of the field of view, aka the right edge of the image. So you end up with a shadow that looks to be vertically aligned with the image, and offset from the center, just like those apollo photographs and all of the examples others have shown here.

Plese, prove me wrong if you can. And saying my drawing is crude is not proof.

[Craig Lamson]

Nice trick lamson ... You TWISTED and BENT your body around to get your shadow off to the side of these pictures ...

The apollo astronots did not do these contortions but were rather standing perfectly erect and facing forward , yet their shadows are way to the side of some of the phony Apollo photos ...

When you are standing straight , your shadow is in the CENTER of your photo !

And you have the nerve to call Jack deceptive ? .... Pretty sneaky stuff their mr. professional photographer .

Since this seems beyond you let me explain ONCE AGAIN.

Jack tried to set up a strawman...he suggested THAT IF THE PHOTOGRAPERS FEET were shown in the images, the shadows must go to the bottom center of the frame. This was deceptive on Jacks part because it has no bearing on the subject at hand...can the shadows in the apollo image really be to the side of the frame. Jack came up with this deceptive little red herring BECAUSE it had been shown emperically that the shadows as shown in the Apollo images were possilbe AND COULD be reproduced by anyone. Jack was in a bind. He had to find SOME WAY to try and save face. So he invented the "to the feet" argument. I'm not sure if JAck knows this argument is false and he is just hoping to fool the ignorant,or if he actually believes it, in which case it would be beyond the pale for someone who claims to be an expert in photography.

In any case I simply called Jack's bluff.

To show the entire photographers shadow to his feet, I needed two things. A very wide angle lens and the sun high in the sky to shorten the shadow. With both I was able to show that Jacks deceptive attempt to CHANGE THE BASIS of the arguement WAS WRONG! You can have the shadow of the photographer all the way down to his feet in EITHER corner of the frame AND in the middle depending on how you FRAME the image. In short, JACK WHITE was simply wrong once again about how a simple shadow works. AND REMEMBER NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SHADOWS IN THE APOLLO IMAGES!

Now on to the second part of my test. Yes you are correct I had to turn my upper body to frame partial shadows in the right and left side of the frames. Ita quite reasonable ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND the fact that I used the sun very high in the sky. Since the shaodow was short I NEEDED to aim the camera down quite a bit and turn my upper body a bit more than the Apollo astronauts to get the picture. However there have been many other emperical examples that look very similar to the Apollo image. In a nutshell, you are simply wrong...again.

Please retract your mistaken claim that I was being deceptive.

I too will say that you were being deceptive. IN NO APOLLO PHOTOS WAS THE SUN HIGH IN THE

SKY...but always very low. That is deceptive. The Hasselblad cameras were attached to the chestplate

and faced straight ahead; your twisting and bending and aiming the camara to the side is deceptive.

You admit to using a very wide angle lens; not using the equivalent of the Apollo lens is deceptive.

In a nutshell, you are simply wrong...again.

Jack

Ok Jack, lets cut to the chase. You are simply trying to save face here. Not very honorable IMHO. First this is not an attempt to recreate an Apollo photograph. The Apollo images in question don't show the astronauts feet. The photos were taken simply to show your statements were wrong, which the photos show. No amount of shucking and jiving on your part can change the simple fact that you screwed up.

Second the angle of the sun does not matter. Light and shadow work the exact same way regardless of the angle of the light. You trying to make an issue of this is....well...deceptive.

Third, the way the Apollo cameras were mounted matters not a whit to the photos in question. I am not recreating Apollo images, I'm showing your even the red herring you constructerd to obscure your failures was in fact a failure too.

Forth, the wide angle lens changes NOTHING. It doesd do two things, it allows the entire shadow from head to foot to be shown and it also makes it IMPOSSIBLE for you to claim the images were croppped.

You really should be ashamed of yourself for trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the unknowing.

Here is your red herring:

No Photographer can stand beside his shadow!

The ONLY apollo photo that correctly depicts the shadow (shows a picture with a photographers shadow in the center of the frame)

Correct: When light is behind photographer, his shaodw MUST GO to the bottom center where his feet are! IT'S THE LAW!

The laws of physics, ananomy, and common sense say that a persons feet are generally under the head;the camera is centered under the head. The camera must be directly above the feet. When the light is behind the photographer, his shadow must go to his feet, not beside him!

So let see if my test fits the above;

My feet were under my head, the camera is centered AT THE HEAD, the camera is directly above the feet, my shadow goes to my feet.

What does not fit:

"Correct: When light is behind photographer, his shaodw MUST GO to the bottom center where his feet are! IT'S THE LAW!"

INCORRECT! Jack White has just been proven wrong AGAIN. The shadows fall in the frame IN RELATION to the framing of the scene, and that can be at either side OR in the center.

Do the honorable thing Jack and admit your mistake.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

And the reason Jack wanted feet to be shown in the photos was to prove that the Apollo astronots could not have taken the off side shadow pictures without turning themselves into contortionists .

Jack and I just proved lamson wrong .... Get over it .

The reason Jack wanted the feet shown was to prove that his theory that the shadows must always go to the lower center of the frame. How I turned my body has no bearing on Jacks claim. My simple photos proved him (and now you by extension) wrong. The placement of the photographers shadow is dictated by the direction the camera is pointed. Jack ( and you) are waving your hands...again.

Wrong again Duane..Get over it.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Dave Greer]

This is a simple concept that anyone with a camera can prove for themselves. Jack's argument is effectively redundant. It's a shame he can't just admit he made a mistake and change or delete this particular Aulis study. I for one would hold him in greater esteem, and indeed give him credit, for rectifying his mistake.

Duane/Jack/"casual observer of thread" - simply replicate this image yourself. All you need is a (digital) camera, and some sunshine.

[Craig Lamson]

I too will say that you were being deceptive. IN NO APOLLO PHOTOS WAS THE SUN HIGH IN THE

SKY...but always very low. That is deceptive. The Hasselblad cameras were attached to the chestplate

and faced straight ahead; your twisting and bending and aiming the camara to the side is deceptive.

You admit to using a very wide angle lens; not using the equivalent of the Apollo lens is deceptive.

In a nutshell, you are simply wrong...again.

Jack

Covering Jacks objections....

Late afternoon light low in the sky, 35mm lens on full frame Canon 5D camera (lens equal to the 60mm Hasselblad lens)

Result...

Jack is wrong once again (or is that STILL WRONG)

As always, don't take my word for it, do the test yourself. Also original raw files of all images availabe on request. (Canon .CR2 files)

[Evan Burton]

Gentlemen,

Please be careful when using the word "deception" or similar when it is in regard to another Forum member (Jack, I note you only used this in reply to another post - this does not apply to you). Being wrong does not necessarily indicate that a poster is being deceptive.

Jack,

If you believe that Craig's images are not being taken under the correct conditions, could you detail the exact conditions required to prove your assertion? If you believe that the conditions cannot be adequately recreated (e.g. must be taken on Moon, airless environment, etc), could you please detail why those conditions are necessary to support your assertion?

Thank you.

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Hi folks,

Can I just echo Evan's comments.

I fully understand everyones passion for the subject and the emotions aroused by your thorough studies, and the questioning of same. Just be careful in your choice of word or phrase, especially when applied to other folk.

Disagreement can be a highly productive and good thing, especially in areas of research and study. It can lead to lights being shone in unexplored areas, as well as opening up mindsets. It need not be a competition to prove someone wrong or right, if approached in the right way everyone can learn from disagreement...it has been said that some even learn from their mistakes. To these I tip my hat, for I unfortunately have to make the same mistake at least twice. The second time because I can't and won't believe I was wrong the first time.

FWIW

Gary

[Craig Lamson]

Bump for Jack....

Edited February 17, 2007 by Craig Lamson