The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
Status: Real
image Here's an odd image that I found posted on a computer graphics forum, where it's the subject of debate about whether it's real or photoshopped. (They've even got a poll going about it.) I would vote that it's real, even though it's amazing that the kid could jump that high up on the wall. (Though with a running start, and being young and athletic enough, it's do-able.) If it's photoshopped, it's incredibly well done.
Update: It's been revealed as real. Apparently this guy (Ryan) has a talent for this kind of thing (jumping and seeming to stick to things).
Categories: Photos/Videos
Posted by The Curator on Thu Dec 01, 2005
IMHO it is fake. See the fluorescent lamps over spiderman? There should be a shadow downwards.
Posted by cocinero  in  Barcelona  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  04:05 AM
Yes, the shadow is wrong and the foot is flat on the wall. I guess that Spiderman sat on a floor with the same tiles.
Posted by Mikkel  in  Copenhagen  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  04:46 AM
Haven't you guys heard of parkour?
Posted by davetolomy  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  04:51 AM
That's physically possible to do (I did it when I was younge) and one would only need a high-speed camera to capture the specific moment when the guy touches the wall. _However_, the shadows _are_ in suspicious angle.
Posted by VL  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  06:19 AM
I'm remodeling a house in Baxter Springs, Kansas. Just about every day, the kids across the street from the house I'm working on are out in the front yard practicing fencing, and other types of combat maneuvers. Some of the moves are quite impressive (especially when they are running on the walls). Chances are that they could duplicate this photos manuever. Some of their moves look like they are right out of the Matrix. And for those of you who are not familiar with fluorescent lightings shadowing, should look into it. Each bulb present over an object projects it's own blurry shadow, giving the result much like the one shown in the photo. My vote is the same as Alex, plausible, or a DARN good Photoshop...
Posted by Christopher in Joplin, Missouri  in  Joplin, Mo  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  06:44 AM
There is a little sign on the wall that seems to have a diff. shadow than the boy. I'd say PSed.
Posted by Pinkish  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  07:11 AM
Sure, a person could do that, but this guy didn't. That plaque on the wall next to him, if you zoom in enough, is actually raised up off the wall. The dark border is a shadow under it. It's at the same level as his top hand, yet the shadow there isn't nearly as deep.

Posted by Steph  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  07:15 AM
The WC sign isn't flush (no pun intended!) witb the wall but it does appear to be atached to it. You can see a section of the bolt between the wall and the sign (left hand side). Some Parkour moves are even more spectacular than this. I'd say it's real.
Posted by Andy  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  10:03 AM
the line between the wall and the lights doesn't look right to me. I think he posed like that on a floor. his left foot is flat. it would likely be arched or bent if he really jumped up onto the wall like that. I say fake.
Posted by andy  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  12:04 PM
It's real. And totally cool.
Posted by booch  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  12:21 PM
I could do it back in the day I used crystal met....nevermind. Its a fake.
Posted by Craig  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  03:09 PM
It's real. It was probably done with a high-speed camera. You folks are looking too much into the shadows.
Posted by Dan  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  03:39 PM
it would be funny if someone did something like that and posted it on the internet just to see how many people would say it's a fake. lol
Posted by Yushi  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  03:58 PM
It's very possible that could be the case. And it's not like that's physically impossible either, the camera isn't telling us the exact amount of time the guy was on the wall for. In High School this one kid was showing off his acrobatics or whatever you want to call it by running up the wall and doing a backflip and such. He also did do that little Spider-man thing like in the picture when he was jumping onto the roof of the school when we were in an enclosed corner.
Posted by Dan  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  04:39 PM
It's SO fake. Look at how sharp and clear his foot is. OK, as a photographer to capture a "real" move like this (i.e the guy can run up a wall, and gets that high for a split second) you'd need a good 1/1000 sec shutter speed. From my experience, shooting in a hall way at ISO 400, typical exposure is maybe 1/30 sec at f 2.8 (to expose the shadowed side of the kid).

Assuming this was a 2.8 lens (not common on low-to-mid digicams but once common on film cams) a maximum aperture we're talking a 5-stop or better difference in exposure to get up to the action freezing 1/1,000 (6 stops for 1/2,000). So on a digicam higher end models can boost their "film speed" or ISO. But we'd need an ISO of 12,800 for this set of parameters. AFAIK no camera goes this high, and if they did the image would be WAY noisier.

So we need a magic camera that can shoot high speed indoor action shots!

And even if we did, there's STILL motion blur as you move outward from the center of gravity.
Posted by Steve  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  05:10 PM
Then please explain to me, if you will, how it's possible to photograph a person jumping? The movement in jumping is faster than the movement in crouching down on the side of a wall from what I've observed.
Posted by Dan  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  05:20 PM
i think it's real. about his foot: it is _not_ flat on the wall. look closely.
Posted by ginster  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  05:36 PM
Several things bother me about this picture:

1. The first thing I noticed was the shadowing. The light appears to be coming from behind and below him...not from above.

1. His left pant leg is pointing up. If I stand up and put my leg at a 90 degree angle to the floor, my pant leg immediately hangs towards the floor. His pant leg seems to defy gravity.

3. The guy in the hallway behind him looks like he is looking up too high to be actually watching the guy jump on the wall.

4. This doesn't mean anything but I noticed on the ceiling just above the fluorescent lights, there are sections broken up in equal intervals by what looks like single support beams...except for the one above the guy on the wall. That one appears to be two support beams that aren't quite flush against each other. No where else in the picture are any of the support beams doubled up like that.

Just my observations.
Posted by Saribellum  in  Another Time  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  06:41 PM
one additional observation....i can't count
Posted by Saribellum  in  Another Time  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  06:42 PM
"1. His left pant leg is pointing up. If I stand up and put my leg at a 90 degree angle to the floor, my pant leg immediately hangs towards the floor. His pant leg seems to defy gravity."

You merely lifting your leg up is not an accurate portrail of the gravity in the photo. If he were jumping at wall towards the camera and he stopped for a moment to pose as in the picture, the pant leg would keep going forward at first, and then be stopped when the back of the pant leg his the back of the leg. It's easily possible the picture was taken during that brief moment in the pant leg's journey.
Posted by Dan  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  06:48 PM
I just don't buy it. It's not a scanned photo, so it was taken with a digicam. Excepting a super-expensive model, which I consider unlikely these kids have, you're not going to get that quality of image in this situation. The guy's pose is overwhelmingly static in what MUST be a high-movement moment. It's just possible that this image was captured at that magic instant of perfect equilibrium when the forward momentum has dissipated yet gravity has yet to begin exerting, but come on, this IS the internet. smile Far more likely (to me) that this is PSed. If you were the perpetrator of this photo, would you be more likely to be showing off the one-in-a-billion photo you took, or your photoshop skills? *I* could 'shop this.

<a >This image</a> shows the pic rotated, and the guy's position is completely consistant with that angle too.

Two words: Occam's razor. smile
Posted by Steph  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  07:32 PM
D'oh! Dude just revealed the answer on that forum.
Posted by Steph  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  07:52 PM
Any good skateboarder could do this. It would just take a couple of shots to get the timing right.
Posted by minime  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  08:04 PM
It looks as though there are additional lights or windows along the right-hand wall. It's not just the overhead lights. Plus, if these kids were doing a proper photo shoot, they may very well have brought along some additional lighting of their own.

And as far as the boy not being blurred by motion, he wouldn't necessarily need to be in motion while on the wall. It's like when you throw something upwards into the air: for a brief instant at the very top of the object's arc, it has no motion. So if the photographer here was either very good or very lucky, he could have caught his friend right at that instant when there was zero velocity.
Posted by Accipiter  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  08:55 PM
Guys, it's real. Like the person said above, the dude has already come out and explained how he did it.
Posted by Dan  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  09:00 PM
Heh, my favorite part of this whole discussion was the "photographer" who said it was impossible.
Posted by J  on  Fri Dec 02, 2005  at  12:58 AM
Now people, would you believe that you could do this, spin 360 degress on the wall and land on your feet?

Probably you wouldn't but you can...

Its just people don't consider what they don't know. A lot of David belles stuff looks impossible but its not because he does it...
Posted by davetolomy  on  Fri Dec 02, 2005  at  11:12 AM
haha i find it funny that it's actually real but everyone says it's so fake and starts to pick out every little detail.
Posted by Yushi  on  Fri Dec 02, 2005  at  05:02 PM
the shawdow is actually entirely possible, if the right side of the picture has some kinda of window or some kind of a strong light source(anything stronger than the fluorescent light-which is not very strong), then the shadow could easily go flat instead of down
Posted by Tom  on  Fri Dec 02, 2005  at  08:57 PM
Re: the shadows

In the blog that's been referenced, he said the wall is opposite some windows and bright sunlight (brighter than the flourescent lights) was coming in those windows. That's why the shadows indicate a light source perpendicular to the wall.
Posted by Big Gary in Eddy, Texas  in  Dallas, Texas  on  Sat Dec 03, 2005  at  12:49 PM
Comments: Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.