Shadow in photo taken by Armstrong

[Glom]

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

Does it?  There are a number of references to print media around.  The reference just has to be proper.

[JayUtah]

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?

Figures 2 and 4 on that page were specifically taken to refute that claim.  Colin Rourke repeats (whether intentionally or not) a claim first made by Jack White and John Costella regarding this photo.  There simply is no such "rule" of perspective as these men assert.  They amply demonstrate they do not understand perspective and optical projection.  As Rourke is no kind of expert in photographic analysis (as were neither White nor Costella) and does not provide any citation, demonstration, or argument of any kind in favor of his claim, there really is no point in providing more than a counter example to show his ignorance.

However in that there is nothing in the text to connect these counterexamples to any specific claim, it would be prudent for me to do so.  And in the future, specific claims regarding the Clavius web site should be directed to the forum set up specifically for that, because I am notified immediately when activity occurs there.

[JayUtah]

However in that there is nothing in the text to connect these counterexamples to any specific claim, it would be prudent for me to do so.

Done.

[LunarOrbit]

Would you like me to move this thread to the Clavius section, Jay?

[JayUtah]

No, now that I've seen it there's no need.

[carpediem]

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

I don't think that is the case.

[Apollo watcher]

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

The "reasoning" is that the photographer's feet must be directly below the center of the photograph, and the shadow on the left shows that they are not.

[Apollo watcher]

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

Does it?  There are a number of references to print media around.  The reference just has to be proper.

Right - the do not have to be online.  In fact, I think paper references are preferred.

[Apollo watcher]

Figures 2 and 4 on that page were specifically taken to refute that claim.

Actually, to me, those two photos are addressing the "shadows not parallel" issue, right?  Not the "feet of the photographer must be directly below the center".

[JayUtah]

Did you read the sections I added?

[Apollo watcher]

Did you read the sections I added?

Not yet.  I'll do it now.

(later)
Now I have.  That should do it, thanks.  I've added it to Wikipedia.

[ChrLz]

Aaah, this comes back to Colin Rourke...    I've got more interested now.  For the sake of completion, does anyone think it might be worth addressing (in some detail), the following statement about that photo by Rourke?  Most of it has indeed been well covered by Jay at Clavius, but perhaps it might bear repeating here - and the 'perils of perspective' is a topic I have a particular interest in (partly generated through my addiction to very wide angle panoramas and the quite convoluted (pun intended) techniques required to stitch images together..)

Here's what Rourke said:

..vertical must appear vertical on the photo and the shadow of the astronaut taking the photo must point back to his feet which are at center bottom..

What a load of rubbish that is.  That throwaway claim is flawed, error-ridden and ignorantly simplified.  Apart from being fundamentally incorrect, it relies on quite a few (invalid) assumptions and really applies only to one very specific case.  It's actually quite difficult to get your shadow to point precisely at your feet - it's a pity Rourke didn't bother actually testing his 'hypothesis' (term used very loosely) - five minutes of use of any camera would have prevented this embarrassment.

BTW...
Am I correct that this Colin Rourke person still has an educational role in a tertiary institution (namely the University of Warwick)?
Am I also right that said Professor Colin Rourke no longer has anything on his website referring to these claims or linking to the PDF, in which he concludes (incorrectly) that this and other images are 'faked'?  Yet the files themselves are still there?

(Hint - yes, I'm pretty sure I'm right.. )

I'm extremely tempted to email him to ask him if he still supports these claims, but perhaps that would be out of line.. (added - and it appears he has been contacted before but didn't feel inclined to debate his claims in public, so i doubt it would achieve much..)

Anyway, if Colin Rourke (surely the search engines will have enough for him to find this thread by now.. ) is reading this, I invite him over to discuss and/or to add comments about his work in the PDF at Aulis that is obviously still being bandied about by Apollo deniers...

Prof. Rourke, it's OK to be wrong, as long as you admit it - perhaps now is the time..?

[Noldi400]

Sounds like one of those "Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong." claims.

[cjameshuff]

A simple thought experiment disproving the claimed "rule of perspective": hold the camera level, pointed off to one side from the direction of shadow. Tilt it down until your feet are visible. Obviously, they're centered at the bottom of the frame, with your shadow pointing right to them, as the hoax claimers expect. But bring the camera back up toward horizontal...your feet will move far past the edge of the frame, and the shadow is obviously not going to continue to point at the bottom center.

And it won't just slide out of the field of view. In tilting the camera up toward horizontal, you are rotating it. This of course makes the view of the scene rotate as well. As the camera goes past level (with respect to the surface the shadow is cast on, assuming a flat surface), the shadow (the portion still visible) will rotate past vertical and tilt the other way, the shadow tilting away from the bottom center.

And this assumes there's only tilt to the camera, no roll. Given the camera mount, there will be little roll, but it won't necessarily be nonexistent.

[Apollo watcher]

Aaah, this comes back to Colin Rourke
BTW...
Am I correct that this Colin Rourke person still has an educational role in a tertiary institution (namely the University of Warwick)?
Am I also right that said Professor Colin Rourke no longer has anything on his website referring to these claims or linking to the PDF

Yes on both counts (Warwick and no link to it from his webpage).