Shadow in photo taken by Armstrong

[Apollo watcher]

In the top photo at this website, http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html Armstrong's shadow is off to the left.  There is a website that claims that the photographer's feet should be directly under the center of the photograph, not off to the side.  This issue is not addressed at the Clavius page.  Is there a good counter to that argument?

[ipearse]

The best counter is to do an experiment. Stand with the sun behind you and take some photos. Try directly down-sun, then turn slightly one way or the other and do it again, and so on. See what you get.

[cjameshuff]

In the top photo at this website, http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html Armstrong's shadow is off to the left.  There is a website that claims that the photographer's feet should be directly under the center of the photograph, not off to the side.  This issue is not addressed at the Clavius page.  Is there a good counter to that argument?

This always seemed like a particularly weird claim. Why would they fake an astronaut taking a picture of his shadow, instead of just...having him take a picture of his shadow?

Anyway...think of what lines do in a perspective view with minimal lens distortion and a level camera, not tilted:  Straight lines transform to straight lines. Parallel lines converge at a vanishing point at infinity, and radial lines meeting at a point under the viewpoint each project onto a vertical strip of the image. Armstrong's shadow follows just such a line. This isn't the ideal case: the camera is tilted and the ground is irregular, so the astronaut's shadow isn't precisely vertical in the image, but it's easily consistent with the officially claimed source.

Here's a stock photo showing similar geometry: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-45404746/stock-photo-bright-path-with-converging-perspective-lines-on-a-winter-morning-with-a-person-walking-in-the.html

The photographer is standing on that path, pretty much on the shadow boundary of the grass to the left. This shadow line projects to a vertical line off to one side in the photo, very much like Armstrong's shadow in AS11-40-5961.

Also, it doesn't apply to this particular case, but hoax proponents often use heavily cropped images, which can produce some odd perspective effects.

[Apollo watcher]

It turns out that I have done that photo experiment, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:My_shadow_DSC1330.jpg

But I would like to have a source like Clavius.

Here is where the claim is made, see figure 14 (near the end of the PDF):
http://www.aulis.com/pdf%20folder/hadley_study.pdf

[darren r]

This neatly sums up the whole HB stance to me : Arguing a point that they could refute themselves simply by going outside and taking a photograph or just paying attention to their surroundings, same as they could the nonsense about 'missing stars', 'stage lights', 'reflections' and so on. If you can reproduce those effects on Earth with no special equipment, then you can discount a whole swathe of 'anomalies' and 'inconsistencies'. And yet they keep using the same tired arguments over and again.

[Apollo watcher]

Yes, but this is for a Wikipedia article, so it needs a source better than a blog.

[ChrLz]

it needs a source better than a blog..

Why?  The Aulis site is nothing but a source of derision.  The ignorance of even basic perspective, let alone all aspects of photography is revealed for all to see, and even the simplest of personal experiments - as you have shown - reveals their complete ignorance.  Actually, it is wilful deceit, given the number of times they have been proven wrong.

Thing is, some things are so obvious that it isn't worth dignifying them with an article.  Given this one can be shown as rank stupidity just by turning your camera slightly when shooting your own shadow... anyone taken in by that site is probably a lost cause.

[ipearse]

It turns out that I have done that photo experiment, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:My_shadow_DSC1330.jpg

The you've done far more than most HBs. Post your picture up and challenge them to analyse it... and see what rubbish they come up with, assuming they deign to reply.

[Apollo watcher]

The you've done far more than most HBs. Post your picture up and challenge them to analyse it... and see what rubbish they come up with, assuming they deign to reply.

I'm not a HB.  But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog.  It uses reliable references from other sources - not the editor's opinion or work.  Clavius.org is cited as a reference several times.  I'm looking for a reference that addresses the arguement in that PDF from Aulis.

[BertL]

This may be what you're looking for.

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/0phase.htm

It doesn't tackle the "shadow not in centre" problem explicitly, but the third photograph on the page has an off-centre shadow of the photographer. You really don't need anything but that to refute the Hoax Believer's argument.

[RAF]

There is a website that claims that the photographer's feet should be directly under the center of the photograph, not off to the side.

So what?

[Apollo watcher]

So what?

It is mentioned in a Wikipedia article, without any counterargument from a reliable source.  I would like to put in a counterargument from a reliable source.

[Noldi400]

I would like to put in a counterargument from a reliable source.

It might take a while, but try combing the internet. If you don't point the camera at the shadow, it won't be in the center of the picture. There must be a billion or so pictures out there that demonstrate this.

If you can provide multiple non-Apollo related examples, that should be as good or better than a reliable source. It's one of those things that's so obvious it's not likely to be mentioned in an article.

[Glom]

I'm confused. Is the HB argument that a photo can't be taken slightly off down-sun?

[gillianren]

And this is why it really irritates me that Wikipedia requires online citations.