Michael Cross Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 I knew you'd have visuals to show what I was trying to illustrate. Wish I had photoshop at work. Thanks David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 And if you need anything done... let me know... we can work it out... Take care DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 Furthermore... once we rotate Oswald correctly... the shadows work Finally, there seems to have been yet another version of the ghost BYP where the ghost casts a shadow on the image... this also shows how Oswald was skewed to look as if he was falling over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted September 8, 2018 Share Posted September 8, 2018 (edited) OK. Ray says their fake. Michael and David do also. I say their fake. We may have gotten there by different paths so, what is the argument? They are fake by various people's reasoning. Let's hoist an adult beverage and move on to something else. That guy, I believe G. Robert Blakely, said if the photos are fake then there was a conspiracy and Oswald was the patsy. Should we now say the infamous "case closed" here. Edited September 8, 2018 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted September 8, 2018 Share Posted September 8, 2018 (edited) On September 7, 2018 at 12:45 PM, David Josephs said: they converge in the wrong direction Ray... Shadows converge towards the source of light... the shadows in the BYP converge in the opposite direction... not possible.... like the image on the right... all the shadows converge towards the light... if the gray arrow was a shadow in this image, it would stick out like a sore thumb... Michael C... the most telling to me is this... when we put Oswald back into the Ghost image, (in a pose not seen until 1977 - so how did they know to put Det Brown and the ghost cutout in the one pose no one sees for 14 years?) magic... Here is a photo that shows diverging shadows. If you line up with the Sun behind the box on the left, the object to the right will to appear to diverge. This is natural and anyone can verify it for themselves in minutes when the Sun is up. Looking from above, these two shadows appear parallel or maybe slightly converging. Not sure how much convergence I should see when the shadow lines would converge 93,000,000 miles away. I think your photo of the fence shadows converging towards the Sun illustrates the distortion effect of shallow camera angles because the shadow lines converge before they even get above the horizon. I do think the Oswald shadow shows 5 or so degrees more than it should. It should be 10 degrees based on the post shadow. With the distortion the camera angle causes that 10 degrees should be 25 to 30 degrees. But it is around 45 suggesting the undistorted angle is around 15 degrees. that is 5 degrees too much. I think the photos I posted in the other BY thread demonstrate that the nose vs body shadows can and do happen. I think this new photo of the boxes shows shadows can diverge which accounts for the post vs Oswald shadows. Simply by matching the camera angle and positions of objects we can duplicate the shadows. So unless we can find an error in the set up of my photos, I think we have to conclude that the shadows in the BY photos are not fake just because the run different directions. The pose Oswald took in 133b that was not discovered till 1977. But I think it was found in the possession of Roscoe Whites relative. So he was around when the Dallas cops took their Backyard comparisons. That means it is possible they had access to 133b from Roscoe White. One question, you said rotating Oswald to straight corrected the shadows. I have had a hard time evaluating the small difference in body shadows. Which shadow looks the most obvious to you. Also how many degrees did you rotate Oswald? Edited March 5, 2019 by Chris Bristow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted September 8, 2018 Share Posted September 8, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, David Josephs said: they converge in the wrong direction Ray... Shadows converge towards the source of light... the shadows in the BYP converge in the opposite direction... not possible.... like the image on the right... all the shadows converge towards the light... if the gray arrow was a shadow in this image, it would stick out like a sore thumb... Michael C... the most telling to me is this... when we put Oswald back into the Ghost image, (in a pose not seen until 1977 - so how did they know to put Det Brown and the ghost cutout in the one pose no one sees for 14 years?) magic... Quote by David. "they converge in the wrong direction Ray... Shadows converge towards the source of light... the shadows in the BYP converge in the opposite direction..." "They also converge away from the source of light (in this case the sun) sun. Because the shadows are parallel, whether looking towards the source of light or away from it they will appear to converge because of perspective. If you don't believe this then please show me a photo where this doesn't happen. This photo shows how the stair post shadow looks as it does. It depends on the position of the camera If the camera had been slightly to the right of where it was, then the shadow of the left stick would have disappeared directly behind the stick.. Edited September 8, 2018 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 8, 2018 Share Posted September 8, 2018 Sigh... It is not the angle of the shadow but the line running thru the shadow then thru the object back to the source of light.... On a flat surface of course. Shadows can never converge in the opposite direction of the light source... Bottom right of this image... The fence shadows and the boy's shadow converge TOWARDS the sun. When learning to Draw... Shadow, light and perspective works... They do not in those BOYs by a magnitude much higher than is possible in the natural, unedited world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted September 8, 2018 Share Posted September 8, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, David Josephs said: Sigh... It is not the angle of the shadow but the line running thru the shadow then thru the object back to the source of light.... On a flat surface of course. Shadows can never converge in the opposite direction of the light source... Bottom right of this image... The fence shadows and the boy's shadow converge TOWARDS the sun. You are totally wrong, David. Sigh as much as you want. It won't change physics. Tell me whether you think the shadows shown in the color photo above are converging or diverging, David. Or are the shadows converging or diverging in this photo? "The fence shadows and the boy's shadow converge TOWARDS the sun." Agreed, but as I said above the shadows, because rather are parallel, will appear to converge towards the sun or away from the sun, due to perspective. Incidentally this is what you eventually replied after we had the same the same argument in 2015, on the Deep Politics Forum. "Ray - thank you for the example and the patience. It does indeed appear as if shadows can be made to look like they converge to a vanishing point based on perspective." https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?15226-Impossible-to-refute-evidence-the-BYPs-are-composites-this-is-a-done-deal/page4#.W5Pu-i2ZOK5 Edited September 8, 2018 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted September 8, 2018 Share Posted September 8, 2018 (edited) Sigh, sigh, Sit up and pay attention. David Josephs has given you boys an education in lights and shadows. I challenge you to find a clearer, more concise, and elegant explanation on how a light source creates shadows. Ray you need to get a dictionary and look up the word parallel. Well, I'll do that for you: Definition of parallel 1 a : extending in the same direction, everywhere equidistant (see equidistant 1), and not meeting parallel rows of trees b : everywhere equally distant concentric spheres are parallel Parallel lines do not converge or diverge. Ray, David was just being polite to you. ""Ray - thank you for the example and the patience. It does indeed appear as if shadows can be made to look like they converge to a vanishing point based on perspective." The operative word here is "made to". He is being less polite in the last sentence of his post most recent post. "When learning to Draw... Shadow, light and perspective works... They do not in those BOYs by a magnitude much higher than is possible in the natural, unedited world" Did you understand what he was saying? Edited September 8, 2018 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted September 8, 2018 Share Posted September 8, 2018 (edited) 29 minutes ago, John Butler said: Sigh, sigh, Sit up and pay attention. David Josephs has given you boys an education in lights and shadows. I challenge you to find a clearer, more concise, and elegant explanation on how a light source creates shadows. Ray you need to get a dictionary and look up the word parallel. Well, I'll do that for you: Definition of parallel 1 a : extending in the same direction, everywhere equidistant (see equidistant 1), and not meeting parallel rows of trees b : everywhere equally distant concentric spheres are parallel Parallel lines do not converge or diverge. Ray, David was just being polite to you. ""Ray - thank you for the example and the patience. It does indeed appear as if shadows can be made to look like they converge to a vanishing point based on perspective." The operative word here is "made to". He is being less polite in the last sentence of his post most recent post. "When learning to Draw... Shadow, light and perspective works... They do not in those BOYs by a magnitude much higher than is possible in the natural, unedited world" Did you understand what he was saying? "Parallel lines do not converge or diverge." I have never said they do. They appear to converge due to perspective, what do you not understand about that? Do you agree that parallel shadows appear to converge whether they are facing towards the sun or away from, John? Edited September 8, 2018 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted September 8, 2018 Share Posted September 8, 2018 At least we all agree that shadow lines converge back towards the source. Obviously not rocket science. Ray's photo in the link and my last box photo offer proof that shadow lines moving out from the Sun can appear to converge due to perspective. So while there is still an issue regarding how much angle we should see, can we all agree that shadow lines moving away from the source CAN APPEAR to be converging? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted September 8, 2018 Share Posted September 8, 2018 Nope. I don’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 For anyone not convinced by the photographic proof both Ray and I have provided there is a simple way to resolve this for yourself. Simply walk outside and place two objects about two feet apart. Line up so one object casts it's shadow almost directly behind the object, I.E with the Sun at your back. You will instantly find that shadows can appear to converge exactly as demonstrated in the photographs we provided. This is really a debate we did not need to have because you can prove it to yourself in a couple minutes. If anyone wants to argue this further I would ask that you first spend a couple minutes outside and test the theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, Chris Bristow said: For anyone not convinced by the photographic proof both Ray and I have provided there is a simple way to resolve this for yourself. Simply walk outside and place two objects about two feet apart. Line up so one object casts it's shadow almost directly behind the object, I.E with the Sun at your back. You will instantly find that shadows can appear to converge exactly as demonstrated in the photographs we provided. This is really a debate we did not need to have because you can prove it to yourself in a couple minutes. If anyone wants to argue this further I would ask that you first spend a couple minutes outside and test the theory. Thanks, Chris. What does the old proverb say "There are none so blind as those who don't want to se". Trying to convince Butler is like trying to knit spaghetti. Edited September 9, 2018 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 (edited) Two photos...same poles first facing away from the sun and second facing towards the sun. In each the shadows appear to converge. Should stop the arguing but I doubt it. ] Edited September 9, 2018 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now