Jack White and David Percy....

An examination of their errors in the matter of the Apollo offset shadow images.

By Craig Lamson

During the Apollo missions to the surface of the moon, a large number of photographs were taken by the astronauts that depict the shadow of the astronaut /photographer created by the sun which was behind them.  These shadows fell on the lunar surface at either the right side or the left had side of the photograph.

Jack White has made the claim that these images prove tampering with the Apollo photography because, as he claims, shadows at the either side of the frame are impossible. His claim is that the only place a shadow may fall in such circumstances is directly in the center of the photograph.  Jack White's views were supported by Dr. John P. Costella, an Australian with a PhD in Physics.

Over the years White has modified his “study” as his work has been shown to be wrong.  Each time he introduces a different element in a failed attempt to keep his claim alive. When his first study was shown to be wrong by many examples of similar offset shadows produced by people from all over the globe, White added a claim that the shadow of the photographer must be in the center of the photo and MUST go directly to his feet.  He claimed that the extant photos showing the offset shadow were now proved fake because a photographer “cannot stand beside his own shadow, and as such the shadow MUST go to the bottom center of the photograph.”  Once again White was proven wrong with empirical data (photographs) that clearly showed his premise was wrong.  Sadly this attempt by White was just a red herring, introduced in a failed attempt to keep his theory alive.

The problem with White is that he never offers direct empirical evidence to back up his claims.  He prefers to make an appeal to authority, based in part by his claim of expert status in the subject of photography and backed by his claim of 50 years of professional experience.  As those who follow White’s work are well aware his claim to expertise has been shattered many times over.  As such any attempt on his part to impart expert status to any of his claims can not be believed.

In the matter of the offset shadow claim, White has produced yet another ‘study’ this time introducing more red herrings based on nothing more than his “expert knowledge” about the subject of photography.  This time however White is joined by David Percy, author and “photography expert.” Percy is hosting White’s “studies” at:

www.aulis.com

David Percy  has this to say about White’s latest offset shadow study as posted at the Education Forum:

“I have looked briefly at the forum links. Personally, I have no time for these people, but I think you will find that the point about the photographers’ shadows now been well and truly dealt with in the last study at:”

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_6.html

In other words, David Percy, “photographic expert” finds White’s unsupported claims credible.

So what is it that these two “experts” are telling us?  Since they offer no evidence to support these claims other than their appeal to authority, are they telling the truth or not?  Let's find out.

Let's review White’s latest attempt to keep his failed theory alive and debunk it step by step with empirical photographic evidence.  If White and Percy are telling the truth, the empirical evidence will back them up. If not, they will be exposed.

In White’s latest study he shows us a typical Apollo photo (one of many) that show an offset shadow which he claims is impossible and a earthly photo taken by an unknown photographer which shows an offset shadow of the photographer.  This photos would seem to prove White’s theory wrong.  But NO! White claims that since the photo does not exactly match certain parameters set by the Apollo photograph it does not debunk his theory…in fact he claims to have debunked the debunker!

So what’s wrong with the empirical evidence presented to debunk White's claim?  White says:

“Debunker photo debunked:

1. Camera is not fastened to the chest, but held by right shoulder and pointed toward white dot at an angle not straight ahead.

2. Camera is a digital rectangular format, not square format.

3. Axis of the shadow is towards the center of photo (blue line), not away as photo at left.  ( He refers to an example photograph from Apollo)

Of the NASA Apollo photo he says:

NASA parameters:

1. Camera fastened to chest, pointing straight ahead.

2. NO viewfinder, body must point in direction of photo.

3. Internal central crosshair establishes lens axis (dot)

4. Cameraman must point camera towards the yellow dot.

5. Because camera is fastened to the chest, it must be directly above the feet.

6. Therefore his feet must be on a line to the lens axis, or the bottom center of the photo.

7. Any shadow of the photographer must lie on an axis which extended leads to his feet.”

To find out if White's claims were true, I made a series of photographic tests.  These tests as detailed below can be repeated by anyone.  In fact I strongly suggest that you do your own tests, don’t take my word for any of this.

First I wanted to find out if the format of the photo  (square, rectangle) had any bearing on the placement of the shadow in a photograph.  To test this I placed a Hasselblad 50mm lens ( slightly wider than the Hasselblad lens used in Apollo) on a 4x5 view camera and took a photo with Polaroid film.

My intent was to show the entire image circle created by the Hasselblad lens.  The reason is simple.  Camera lenses produce a circular image.  Cameras crop this circular image internally to produce the desired format.  Hasselblad for example produces a number of different format film backs that crop the projected image to either a square or rectangular format.

Since this camera/ lens combination had no mechanism to operate the internal shutter on the Hasselblad lens, I set the camera on a 12 foot studio stand and used a tungsten studio lamp to light the scene.  To control the exposure time I left the lens shutter open and simply turned the light on for the required amount of time and then turned it off to end the exposure.

Before we discuss the images,  I want to talk a bit about the properties of a studio light . I’m sure at this point some are preparing a rebuttal claiming this test is not valid due to a studio light being used.  Such a rebuttal is destined to fail.  As shown below, a studio light ( and also the sun) casts its light in a radial pattern. The distance from the sun to the earth negates this radial pattern and as such rays of the sun are parallel.  A studio light is much closer to the subject and thus the ray are radial in nature.  This would create a problem when comparing shadows from two different objects in different places in a given scene lit by a studio light.  In my test that is not the case.  We are only considering one shadow cast by a light and a subject that does not move between photographs, and the subject is placed in the center of the light beam from the studio light.

Here is the resulting photo. Notice the circular projection of the lens.

Next I have taken this photograph and drawn some standard format lines to denote the approximate cropping for the different film formats.

It is quite clear that White's claim that format differences makes a difference is complete without basis and is false. His claim that digital capture cannot compare to film capture as it relates the geometry of a recorded shadow is also false. If that were the case, professional photographers would not use digital imaging systems. Digital is the standard in professional photography today.

White's next claim is that the camera height (chest V head) makes a difference. To this claim I used the same camera/light setup and took a series of exposures with the camera at chest height, and head height with photos taken to the right and left. The camera was level.

Clearly the camera height has no effect on the placement of the shadows. In every case the camera was pointed straight ahead on its intended line of sight.

White's claim that camera height makes a difference is wrong.

Finally I wanted to know what could make the angle of the photographers shadow change besides the obvious leaning right and left by the photographer. To test this I again produced a series of photos using the same set but this time aimed the camera up and then down.

As we can see the shadow angle in the image changes in relation to the up/down angle of the camera.  It behaves in a predictable manner that anyone who uses a camera can see for themselves. Pointing the camera up causes the shadow to converge towards the top of the frame.  Pointing the camera down causes the shadows to converge towards the bottom of the frame.

White's claim that the angle of the shadow is a problem is shown to be false.  It should also be noted that not all of the Apollo offset shadow images contain the same features as the one White has shown.  Others show the photographers shadow at differing angles, as it correct given changing camera angles.

White's attempts to “debunk” the user photo he has posted fails.

Now lets see if his claims about the “Apollo parameters” stand up.

1. White states that the camera is fastened to the chest of the astronaut is pointed straight ahead. The camera was attached to the RCU unit ant in turn was attached to the astronaut via straps. This allowed the astronaut to point the camera right, left, up and down in a limited range of motions. The camera could also be removed from the camera mount.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-RCU.html

White’s claim is false

2. White states that the camera has no viewfinder and body must point in the direction of the photo.  It is true that the camera had no viewfinder but as shown above the camera could be moved without moving the body.  But for the sake of argument lets see if moving the body is a problem. The 60mm lens used by the Apollo astronauts had a horizontal Field of View of 49.25 degrees.  That means the astronaut only needs to turn 20 degrees or so to move his shadow.

White is correct, the astronaut simply needs to turn his body to aim the camera to produce the offset shadows.  White even offers these three photos that prove the astronauts could turn and change the shadow position.

3. White states that the center crosshair found on the Apollo Hasselblad surface images shows the lens axis.

White is correct.

4. White states the astronaut must point the camera towards the yellow dot (placed by White on an Apollo photo to denote the center crosshair.)

White is correct.

5. White states that since the camera is attached to the chest of the astronaut it must be above his feet. Again

White is correct.

6. White states that since the astronauts feet must be on a line to the lens axis, or the bottom center of the photograph.

White’s claim is false. The photographers feet need not be at the bottom center of the image. See my tests above.

7. White states any shadow of the photographer, if extended, must lead to his feet.

White is correct. However once again that shadow DOES NOT NEED TO LEAD TO THE BOTTOM CENTER OF THE PHOTOGRAPH!

Finally White offers what he calls a simplified version of his original study.  In it he claims once again that the shadow of a photographer who is backlit MUST, when extended lead to the bottom center of the image.

White‘s claim is false.

And again he offers this set of images in an attempt to prove his point. He says they are fake because the shadows cannot point away from the center of the image.

Of course he is wrong again as proven by these images:

Finally he concludes:

“Incorrect images like above ( the A12-47 series) have been cropped from a larger image.”

Strangely White is both right and wrong.  He is right in that photographs produced by standard cameras (not a system like I used to show the entire image circle) are cropped…down from circle to a the format of choice, as can be seen here:

However that is not what White is implying.  His implication is that the only way to produce photographs with an offset photographers shadow is to take a wide angle photograph with the photographers shadow in the center of the frame.  Then that photograph is cropped to produce images with the photographers shadow at either side of the photograph.

That is totally false as can be seen (and tested by anyone with a camera) by the studio images I created and posted above and in the many test images created by people all around the world.

White and Percy both claim photography expert status.  This study in the shadows of Apollo astronaut /photographers is based on very basic rules of photography.  White and Percy are asking the reader to take them at their word that they are correct.  They offer no empirical evidence to back their claims.  After doing the testing I can see why.  Their claims are false.  White and Percy are simply foisting misinformation onto unsuspecting readers.  Are they really experts?  I think not.