Dave Greer Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 As the thread has got quite lengthy, I'll summarize. The claim Jack has made can be found in full here:- http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/shadowstudy.jpg The text reads:- "No photographer can stand BESIDE his shadow! When light is behind a photographer, his shadow MUST go to the bottom centre where his feet are.""The laws of physics, anatomy and common sense say that a person's feet are generally directly under the head; the camera is centred 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!" Jack was shown several different photos by muself and Evan showing this claim to be incorrect, and was asked to withdraw or amend his study. Jack's first response was to say that he was only referring to uncropped photos. A fair comment, even though some of the Apollo photos he references on his study are clearly cropped - I'm assuming he made a mistake by including cropped images. Subsequently, Jack asked for images including the feet of the photographer. Why Jack asked for this is not clear - it is not something we see in any of the Apollo photos he posted. Nevertheless, Craig duly obliged, and was accused of contorting his body to get his feet in the picture. Craig subsequently posted further photos where he appears to be standing straight, showing his feet. We still don't know why Jack has requested these photos, but the thread is still here for him to make comment on that. The thread diverged somewhat from the original topic, so let's get it back on topic. Jack's claim:- "No photographer can stand BESIDE his shadow! When light is behind a photographer, his shadow MUST go to the bottom centre where his feet are." How can Jack's claim be correct when it is clearly possible (in fact, very easy) to take photos that contradict his assertion? I'll repost mine. I'll ask again for Jack to either defend his claim properly, or withdraw it from the Aulis site. (Asking for more photographs with the photographer's feet in the shot is IMO a red herring.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Dave ... Why are you not twisted around like Lamson was in his photos which proved Jack's point about feet being in the photo ? Jack claims ... "No photographer can stand BESIDE his shadow! When light is behind a photographer, his shadow MUST go to the bottom centre where his feet are." But unlike Lamson's twisted shadows photos , your feet are not in this photo ... Therefore you are NOT standing beside your own shadow ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Dave ... Why are you not twisted around like Lamson was in his photos which proved Jack's point about feet being in the photo ?Jack claims ... "No photographer can stand BESIDE his shadow! When light is behind a photographer, his shadow MUST go to the bottom centre where his feet are." But unlike Lamson's twisted shadows photos , your feet are not in this photo ... Therefore you are NOT standing beside your own shadow ! This argument is totally LOST on you Duane. Jack has been proven wrong by my photos TWICE. AS can be seen by TWO sets of photos, THIS: When light is behind a photographer, his shadow MUST go to the bottom centre where his feet are."Is just totally wrong. Not that it matters, it was a red herring designed by Jack to divert attention to his failures withe the simply Armstrong shadow issue. And YOU fell for it. And worst of all JACK GOT THE RED HERRING WRONG AS WELL! As to your question to Dave...ANGLE OF VIEW! sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Dave ... Why are you not twisted around like Lamson was in his photos which proved Jack's point about feet being in the photo ?Jack claims ... "No photographer can stand BESIDE his shadow! When light is behind a photographer, his shadow MUST go to the bottom centre where his feet are." Duane - there was no reason for me to twist around to take this photo, just as there was no reason for me to photograph my feet - NONE of the Apollo photos Jack was claiming to be fakes included their feet. Look at the Apollo photos Jack claimed are impossible. Here's a copy of AS11-40-5961 which is one of the ones Jack claims is impossible. I'll compare it next to mine. Neither photo shows the photographer's feet, nor does it need to. I could just have easily held my camera in "landscape" mode rather than "portrait" to exaggerate the effect. But unlike Lamson's twisted shadows photos , your feet are not in this photo ... Therefore you are NOT standing beside your own shadow! Then show me a single Apollo photo were one of the astronauts is standing next to his own shadow, with his feet in the photo to prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 It seems pretty conclusive proof that Jack's claims are incorrect. Jack, can you refute Dave Greer's post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I was just walking back from lunch and noticed my shadow, and it occured to me that a shadow isn't even necessary to test Jack's claims, all you need is a straight line on the ground. Stand on a curb, edge of a sidewalk, line in the road, any straight line that passes under your feet, and it will have the same effect of perspective that your shadow on the ground would, and no one can accuse you of twisting or contorting yourself to alter your shadow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 And here we have some cameraphone images to show the effect. In both pics, the shadow runs directly under the camera (and my feet). But in the second one, it certainly doesn't run to the bottom center of the image. So Jack, how many examples do you need before you admit you're wrong? Have you tested this yourself yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Bump for Jack White..still waiting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Jack, ignoring it won't make it go away. Please do the right thing, you said that you would admit if you were wrong, didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Hey Jack, any plans on responding to this thread? I find it disturbing that you stop responding to these threads where you've been shown to be wrong, instead of being honest and admitting your mistake. I find it even more disturbing that the 'study' in question is still up there on aulis.com misleading people when you know it's wrong. And you call my posts disinformation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 (edited) Hey Jack, any plans on responding to this thread? I find it disturbing that you stop responding to these threads where you've been shown to be wrong, instead of being honest and admitting your mistake. I find it even more disturbing that the 'study' in question is still up there on aulis.com misleading people when you know it's wrong. And you call my posts disinformation? Want to see something REALLY funny? Watch a CT disprove Jacks Whites silly claim! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50l0_GriaWs In this segment a teacher of all people spread misinformation and then the filmmaker thinking he is proving his point ( while actually disproving it) ALSO shows Jack White to be wrong as well! Amazing stuff! Edited April 21, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 Jarrah is a fool. The shape of the object has everything to do with it, the rock had a flat top, his tilted bucket does not. The video is a great example of him 'standing next to his own shadow' though. Any comments Jack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted April 21, 2007 Author Share Posted April 21, 2007 (edited) Hey Jack, any plans on responding to this thread? I find it disturbing that you stop responding to these threads where you've been shown to be wrong, instead of being honest and admitting your mistake. I find it even more disturbing that the 'study' in question is still up there on aulis.com misleading people when you know it's wrong. And you call my posts disinformation? Want to see something REALLY funny? Watch a CT disprove Jacks Whites silly claim! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50l0_GriaWs In this segment a teacher of all people spread misinformation and then the filmmaker thinking he is proving his point ( while actually disproving it) ALSO shows Jack White to be wrong as well! Amazing stuff! This is the video that the email saga started by Duane on the other thread is about. I emailed the teacher in question to find out about her credentials. She's a fine arts teacher, not a photography expert, and never claimed to be an authority on photographic analysis. She does agree that my beach photo below disproves Jarrah's theory about the Apollo image, but admits to being the wrong person to ask as to "why" that is the case - she leaves that to an optical expert. Of course, anyone who thinks I'm lying about this photo can easily verify the truth for themselves, providing they have the following:- (1) a camera (cheap digital camera ideal) (2) some rocks or other suitably shaped objects (3) a surface to place aforementioned rocks on (4) some sunshine, preferably with a low sun angle (5) a modicum of gumption Edited April 21, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted May 13, 2007 Author Share Posted May 13, 2007 Well, I contacted Aulis about Jack's shadow study. It's been taken down, and replaced with this one. I haven't had time to study it in detail, but will try and respond to it soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 Well, I contacted Aulis about Jack's shadow study. It's been taken down, and replaced with this one. I haven't had time to study it in detail, but will try and respond to it soon. This is almost too funny for words. And to think people call this foolish old man a "expert in photography" Jacks latest shuck and jive to soon be trashed! Watch this space! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now