"Two" Shadows from one object?

[bknight]

I was bored today and did a search on The Blunder's videos.  Right from the start he begins blabbing about shadows not being parallel and two light sources do not guarantee two shadows if the subject is much closer to one of the sources.  I'll buy that one from him, however just after that he introduces what he calls multiple shadows from A17.  It a while to find the image and it is https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-136-20744HR.jpg
If you look in the extreme lower left portion of the image and magnify near Jack's leg shadow, you will see a rock projecting out of the Lunar surface that "appears" to have two shadows at nearly right angles.

To me it isn't two shadows, but a single shadow of the object, but the object isn't a pyramidal shape but a pyramid with a flattish extension on the right causing the "look" of two shadows.  If one looks further "up" the image still close to Jack's leg shadow, one observes a rock with only one shadow.  The Blunder forgot to include that one in his description. 

Any other ideas?

[Miss Vocalcord]

If you look in the extreme lower left portion of the image and magnify near Jack's leg shadow, you will see a rock projecting out of the Lunar surface that "appears" to have two shadows at nearly right angles.

Any other ideas?

It is exactly that to me; there is another rock in front of the rock causing the shadow to look this way.

[Trebor]

Did he try to explain why that one rock had two perfectly dark shadows, yet every other single rock only had one?
And It looks to me more like the rock has a shallow dip there which is why its shadowed..

[bknight]

Did he try to explain why that one rock had two perfectly dark shadows, yet every other single rock only had one?
And It looks to me more like the rock has a shallow dip there which is why its shadowed..

Of course he did not explain why the one rock had one shadow, that would have disproved his outlook.  Error by omission.

[onebigmonkey]

Did he try to explain why that one rock had two perfectly dark shadows, yet every other single rock only had one?
And It looks to me more like the rock has a shallow dip there which is why its shadowed..

This is my impression as well - the rock (if you can call it that) to the right is barely off the ground and I don't think it would produce much of a shadow, as you can actually see if you get in really close.

Blunder would also have to come up with an explanation as to why no other rock, not even those close to that one, produces a similar effect.

[MBDK]

I believe the topography of the immediate area accounts for the majority of the distortion of the rock's shadow.  If you look just to the right, between the legs' shadows, you will see what looks like a much larger, almost circular, shadow than expected from the corresponding rock/mound, which is almost certainly due to topography (IMHO).

[bknight]

I believe the topography of the immediate area accounts for the majority of the distortion of the rock's shadow.  If you look just to the right, between the legs' shadows, you will see what looks like a much larger, almost circular, shadow than expected from the corresponding rock/mound, which is almost certainly due to topography (IMHO).

Topography around the rock is also a good explanation for "two" shadows.

[AstroBrant]

I think it's just a depression. The other objects aren't in positions which would cast a shadow like that. You can see lots more of them in the lower right portion of the photo because they are on a slight downward slope away from the camera.