Jump to content
The Education Forum
Tony Krome

Backyard Photo Observation

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Rich Pope said:

Oswald had a lot of camera equipment when they searched his room.  And some of this equipment was very expensive.  How can you say he's not a camera buff?  

On the basis that he did not seem to produce many photographs. Despite having equipment, and a young family, really just a small handful of photos in the Oswald collection could be directly attributed to his activity, and most of those were landscapes from Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Cross said:

Willful ignorance.  Perfect.

Even when they are proven to be wrong they never apologise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Even when they are proven to be wrong they never apologise.

I believe that I did!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I can't resolve is the date the BYP's were taken. On 3/31 the azimuth from 3pm to 4pm went from 194 to 220 and the elevation 61 to 55. Looking at the post shadow it sure looks like the azimuth was about 240. At 5pm the azimuth was around 240 but the elevation was so low that Oswald's shadow would be about 6 feet long. It isn't until about April 15th at 430pm that you get a 240 azimuth with an elevation of 51 which matches the BYP's.
The HSCA determined Marina's line of sight was 70 degrees East of North. An azimuth of 220 translates to 40 degrees East of North. This means from Marina's pov Oswald was standing 30 degrees away from the post. For that to be true she would have to be standing only 4 feet from Oswald which seems impossible, it should be more like 13 feet. (Azimuth can be determined by using North or South as the starting point and you can go clockwise or counterclockwise. for Neeley st. they use a clockwise movement starting with North as the starting point of zero azimuth).
 To test how many degrees away from the post Oswald is, take  Marina's distance to Oswald as 4 feet(Radius) x 2 = 8 feet(diameter) x 3.14 =  a 25 foot circle based on a 4 foot camera distance. 360 degrees divided by  a 25 foot circle results is 14.4 degrees per foot. Oswald is about 2 feet from the post so he would be about 29 degrees away from the post. If that were possible then Marina's pov at 70 degrees East of North(Per the HSCA) would be 29 degrees away from the post and everything would be fine. But Marina can't be just 4 feet away from Oswald so Oswald can't be 29 degrees away from the azimuth. This means the azimuth of 220 on 3/31 at 330pm can't be right or Marina's line of sight as 70 degrees East of North can't be right. 
 If Marina is 13 from Oswald then he would be about 9 degrees away from the post. If this is the case and the HSCA is correct about Marina's 70 degree line of sight to Oswald then the post's shadow represents an azimuth of about 240 or 60 degrees East of North. Oswald would be at 70 East of North, 9 or 10 degrees away from the post shadow. 
The post shadow points almost directly to the post under the landing at the top of the stairs( The post under the NorthWest corner of the landing). You could determine the azimuth if you know the distance from the post to the NorthWest landing post and the width between them. I measure the stairway to be from 30 to 36 inches wide.
    To get the distance from post to post I use the steps which I measure to be 10.28 inches each( 12 foot long stairway divided by 14 steps = 10.28 inches per step) the landing post is 51 inches East of Oswald's post. If you draw a box with the proportions based on 36' width and 51 inch length  and draw a line from the lower left corner to the upper right corner it shows the angle of the post shadow which aligns with an azimuth of around 235 to 240. 
 to make the azimuth come out to 220 the stairs would have to be 6 feet wide or 42 inches long from post to post. The width obviously is no more than 3 feet and the length can't be 42 inches or each step would be only 8 inches long, shorter than the average foot. So I can't see the photos being done before April 15th.
    I wish some  person in Dallas could take a picture of the yard this March 31st. That would solve a lot. 
 


 

Edited by Chris Bristow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:


    I wish some  person in Dallas could take a picture of the yard this March 31st. That would solve a lot. 
 

Exactly what I was thinking the other day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Michael Cross said:

I believe that I did!

 

I didn't mean you, Michael. I meant the other two dissidents, David and John.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can’t change physics Ray...   the visual effects of 2d images representing 3d space is what causes the anomaly. 

You can talk till you turn blue... parallel lines never touch no matter what it may LOOK like in a photo, and shadows converge only towards the source of light... simple physics...  adding perspective doesn’t change the physics...

while it may appear that way in your two poles example... light doesn’t work that way.

and it works in reverse too.. the RR tracks don’t get farther apart as they get closer... it’s an illusion, and that’s what you see with your poles... an illusion based on the location of the camera and the fact it is being observed.

Shadows will never converge in the opposite direction of the light source... physical law Ray... not an illusion.

You do understand the act of viewing the phenomenon changes it from how things work in physics to how that photo was composed... two very different things....

we just disagree... please don’t paint me with the same brush as JB, I respect what your point is, I simply don’t see it that way

... :cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe Ray and Michael want to understand simple science.  It doesn't fit their game.  Their focus is to harass by asking an endless series of questions they and they alone consider appropriate.

Ray has picked me as a focus of his trolling efforts from time to time.  Eventually, I just don't respond and he goes away until the next time.  He thinks he is correcting my lies and false information. 

Admittedly, I make mistakes.  But, I always stand by the corrections and admit when I am wrong.  I don't give up on fanciful theories just because others call them such.   There is usually some evidence supporting whatever I say.  It may not be suitable to others.  From time to time the evidence is weak or insufficient.  But, still evidence pointing out something that should be looked at.  Inexplicable things happening near the borders of the paradigm are often the most interesting.  Peripheral events some times when understood better open up new insights in to what actually happened.  I use the BYPs as an example.  Tony Krome has added something new about the BYPs by looking at them through a different lens.

Ray.  Find something to talk about and post a research thread and see how many people pay attention to you.  If you join in on another thread try to be helpful rather than carping on your weird ideas. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Can’t change physics Ray...   the visual effects of 2d images representing 3d space is what causes the anomaly. 

You can talk till you turn blue... parallel lines never touch no matter what it may LOOK like in a photo, and shadows converge only towards the source of light... simple physics...  adding perspective doesn’t change the physics...

while it may appear that way in your two poles example... light doesn’t work that way.

and it works in reverse too.. the RR tracks don’t get farther apart as they get closer... it’s an illusion, and that’s what you see with your poles... an illusion based on the location of the camera and the fact it is being observed.

Shadows will never converge in the opposite direction of the light source... physical law Ray... not an illusion.

You do understand the act of viewing the phenomenon changes it from how things work in physics to how that photo was composed... two very different things....

we just disagree... please don’t paint me with the same brush as JB, I respect what your point is, I simply don’t see it that way

... :cheers

You posted this montage. The second image is way out. As you can see, the line of the post shadow you added and the shadow of Oswald, converge on a light source, somewhere about 5 yards behind the camera, rather than converging on the sun which is 90million miles away.

762949527_BYPwithstandinin133-cpose-shad

 

Of course parallel lines never converge, they just appear to converge due to perspective. I have shown both you and John, two photos which show that whichever way you look at shadows, they always APPEAR to converge.

Let's see if we can agree about something, David. (In your original post you seemed to think that there was something amiss with the photo.Do you?)

In this photo of pole shadows, The shadow appear to converge away from the source of light. Do you agree?

https://postimg.cc/hX0PQyMB

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I don't believe Ray and Michael want to understand simple science.  It doesn't fit their game.  Their focus is to harass by asking an endless series of questions they and they alone consider appropriate.

Ray has picked me as a focus of his trolling efforts from time to time.  Eventually, I just don't respond and he goes away until the next time.  He thinks he is correcting my lies and false information. 

Admittedly, I make mistakes.  But, I always stand by the corrections and admit when I am wrong.  I don't give up on fanciful theories just because others call them such.   There is usually some evidence supporting whatever I say.  It may not be suitable to others.  From time to time the evidence is weak or insufficient.  But, still evidence pointing out something that should be looked at.  Inexplicable things happening near the borders of the paradigm are often the most interesting.  Peripheral events some times when understood better open up new insights in to what actually happened.  I use the BYPs as an example.  Tony Krome has added something new about the BYPs by looking at them through a different lens.

Ray.  Find something to talk about and post a research thread and see how many people pay attention to you.  If you join in on another thread try to be helpful rather than carping on your weird ideas. 

 

"Ray has picked me as a focus of his trolling efforts from time to time."

 

Not trolling you, John, just correcting your numerous errors. You are wrong.

 

John Butler.

"Ray apparently needs to re-educate himself in science. I would suggest physics, math, and astronomy."

I asked you,John, how you disagree with my posting that sun shadows always appear to converge when looking at them. You never answered. 

Perhaps it is you who needs re-educatiing in physics, math and astronomy, not me.

If you don't believe me do what Michael, suggested go outside and, assuming it is sunny, stick two poles in the ground and  look at the way the shadows appear to converge which ever way you look at them. 

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Can’t change physics Ray...   the visual effects of 2d images representing 3d space is what causes the anomaly. 

You can talk till you turn blue... parallel lines never touch no matter what it may LOOK like in a photo, and shadows converge only towards the source of light... simple physics...  adding perspective doesn’t change the physics...

while it may appear that way in your two poles example... light doesn’t work that way.

and it works in reverse too.. the RR tracks don’t get farther apart as they get closer... it’s an illusion, and that’s what you see with your poles... an illusion based on the location of the camera and the fact it is being observed.

Shadows will never converge in the opposite direction of the light source... physical law Ray... not an illusion.

You do understand the act of viewing the phenomenon changes it from how things work in physics to how that photo was composed... two very different things....

we just disagree... please don’t paint me with the same brush as JB, I respect what your point is, I simply don’t see it that way

... :cheers

You're right that parallel lines never touch of course.  But that's not what we're dealing with.  We are dealing with perception, the way reality is perceived, both by humans with binocular vision and by cameras with single lenses.  And the phenomena of perspective, first understood around 1400 by painters, is as real as the fact that parallel lines do not actually intersect.  

Not understanding or agreeing to that hinders - actually cocks up - all these conversations.  What we can learn from looking at the phenomena of perspective, is that shadows will SEEM to converge across a frame from a monocular lens in a PREDICTABLE way.  Divergence from that predictable pattern is what we should be looking for in terms of fakery, and is what we do see in the BYP.

 

*edit - I write this as a further thought to david, not a counter.

Edited by Michael Cross
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm?  Always the same nonsense. 

You should have posted again your lack of understanding about the word "emergence".  I think I explained that to you in the last post.  If that didn't do.  Then, think of it as emerging out from under a bridge to exact your toll by spewing despite.

As far as Josephs goes, I don't care for his personality or behavior of personal attacks.  But, when he is right he is right.  And, do as he advises don't paint me with the same brush as him.

As far a artists go, Michael, perspective and its determination go much further into the past than the 1400s.  Bad artists who use the improper use of perspective generally vanish from the scene.  That is the way it is today and it was in the past.   

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And honestly Mr. Butler, either shut up or go take two photos and see what you get.

 

No, parallel lines never intersect in reality.  But they appear to due to a phenomena of perception called perspective.  If you aren't willing to do the test yourself you are being willfully ignorant.  And that isn't a quality that belongs in research - see DVP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Mr. Cross, I don't take advice from folks who don't know what they are talking about.  Improper use of perspective allows parallel lines to touch in art work.  Parallel lines should vanish into a vanishing point and not touch.  Pay more attention to what David Josephs said.

I guess I have to live with being willfully ignorant and I should shut up as told.  No. No.  Mr. Cross.  Would you deny me basic civil rights while impugning my character in an ad hominem attack?  According to Ray I am a xxxx, another ad hominem attack.  Where is Michael Clark while you folk are disparaging my character.  He once warned me not to speak of your mental health and rightfully so.  Where is he now when you, Michael Cross and Ray Mitcham, take away my civil rights and abuse my character?

 

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, John Butler said:
Quote

Sorry, Mr. Cross, I don't take advice from folks who don't know what they are talking about.  Improper use of perspective allows parallel lines to touch in art work.  Parallel lines should vanish into a vanishing point and not converge.  Pay more attention to what David Josephs said.

You do understand the meaning of "converge", John?

converge

[kuhn-vurj]

verb (used without object), con·verged, con·verg·ing.

to tend to meet in a point or line; incline toward each other, as lines that are not parallel.
to tend to a common result, conclusion, etc.
Mathematics . 
  1. (of a sequence) to have values eventually arbitrarily close to some number; to have a finite limit.
  2. (of an infinite series) to have a finite sum; to have a sequence of partial sums that converges.
  3. (of an improper integral) to have a finite value.
  4. (of a net) to be residually in every neighborhood of some point.

 

Quote
Quote

I guess I have to live with being willfully ignorant and I should shut up as told.

 

Sounds a good idea.

 

No. No.  Mr. Cross.  Would you deny me basic civil rights while impugning my character in an ad hominem attack?  According to Ray I am a xxxx, another ad hominem attack.  

Where did I call you a " xxxx", John?

 

Still no answer to my question by the way,John. Can't answer it?

 

Quote

 

 

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×