Ray Mitcham Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 (edited) Statement by David Josephs. "Ask yourself a LOGIC question Ray.... with a single source of light - regardless of how big, or how far, the shadows created by that light source will only converge in the direction of the light." Wrong. In this photo the shadows are converging against the direction of the light. In fact one of the photos you posted above shows the shadows converging against the direction of the light. https://postimg.cc/rzdmZ9y1][/url Explain. Edited February 12, 2019 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Perspective. Appearance (perspective) vs. what is physically happening (physical science). Can't we come to this agreement and move on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 1 minute ago, Michael Cross said: Perspective. Appearance (perspective) vs. what is physically happening (physical science). Can't we come to this agreement and move on? Exactly ... Ray, you are not really trying to convince us that these shadows, falling AWAY from the light source... could or ever would converge unless the size of the item was so large as to cause the penumbra and umbra as shown above. 9 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said: In fact one of the photos you posted above shows the shadows converging against the direction of the light. https://postimg.cc/rzdmZ9y1][/url The sun is in the distance in the photo above, not behind the camera Ray... when you stand and view the way the light falls and creates these shadows you need to account for PERSPECTIVE and you simply are not. Now the sun is in the opposite direction Ray... PERSPECTIVE allows for the lines to get shorter as they move away... longer as they move closer.... NEWSBREAK RAY!!!! If you were to hover 100 feet above the 2 poles, the shadows would APPEAR parallel It is now up to you to show us how a shadow can CONVERGE away the light source without the use of PERSPECTIVE... Have at it buddy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 (edited) Ray, You refuse to understand this simple diagram by offering "facts" to dispute it. Your argument goes a long ways toward explaining some of our arguments in the past. At one point I accused you of being a secret Lone Gunner. And, you denied this. I took your word for that at the time. But, that point keeps popping up from time to time. Sorry. Sorry, Michael. Willfully ignorant is another way of saying he is a xxxx. Everyone knows what quad-x is and covers over. Oh? Didn't you tell me to shut up? Do you fellas have another agenda other than legitimate jfk research? I don't know of anyone other than you two that would argue against the above information of Josephs as being inaccurate. The parallel lines do not converge or touch. The third cactus shadow may appear to but, magnify and you will see the lines come to a vanishing point without convergence which you have defined as touching. Edited February 12, 2019 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, John Butler said: Ray, You refuse to understand this simple diagram by offering "facts" to dispute it. Your argument goes a long ways toward explaining some of our arguments in the past. At one point I accused you of being a secret Lone Gunner. And, you denied this. I took your word for that at the time. But, that point keeps popping up from time to time. Sorry. Edit: I didn't see this in David's post. This diagram only shows one side - looking into the sun, - and the shadows would converge in the other direction from the other side. This shows lines going to a point on the horizon - perspective. Sorry, Michael. Willfully ignorant is another way of saying he is a xxxx. Everyone knows what quad-x is and covers over. Oh? Didn't you tell me to shut up? No, Willfully Ignorant is entirely different from lying. Entirely. Being a xxxx is being willfully dishonest. Refusing to take 2 minutes to go outside and take two photos is a demonstration of willful ignorance, or perhaps lacking the courage of one's convictions - cowardice. * and what the hell is quad-x? Quote Do you fellas have another agenda other than legitimate jfk research? I don't know of anyone other than you two that would argue against the above information of Josephs as being inaccurate. The parallel lines do not converge or touch. The third cactus shadow may appear to but, magnify and you will see the lines come to a vanishing point without convergence which you have defined as touching. My agenda here - in this thread - is to try an get an agreement on fact based criteria from which to examine photographs during JFK research. Doing things like taking photographs to test how shadows fall - and sharing them with the community - is research in and of itself. You should try some. Edited February 12, 2019 by Michael Cross clarification Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 12 minutes ago, Michael Cross said: My agenda here - in this thread - is to try an get an agreement on fact based criteria from which to examine photographs during JFK research. Doing things like taking photographs to test how shadows fall - and sharing them with the community - is research in and of itself. You should try some. Michael, it seems you can't fix stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 27 minutes ago, John Butler said: Ray, You refuse to understand this simple diagram by offering "facts" to dispute it. Your argument goes a long ways toward explaining some of our arguments in the past. At one point I accused you of being a secret Lone Gunner. And, you denied this. I took your word for that at the time. But, that point keeps popping up from time to time. Sorry. Sorry, Michael. Willfully ignorant is another way of saying he is a xxxx. Everyone knows what quad-x is and covers over. Oh? Didn't you tell me to shut up? Do you fellas have another agenda other than legitimate jfk research? I don't know of anyone other than you two that would argue against the above information of Josephs as being inaccurate. The parallel lines do not converge or touch. The third cactus shadow may appear to but, magnify and you will see the lines come to a vanishing point without convergence which you have defined as touching. Why don't you try answering a simple question, John. Where am I wrong with my photos of shadows appearing to converge both away from and towards the sun? It seems you don't have an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Ray - it's been asked and answered a few times already - you aint gonna learn what you don't wanna know... Here, let's make this simple... PHOTOGRAPHS DO NOT OFFER PHYSICAL REALITY DUE TO PERSPECTIVE, FOCAL DISTANCE AND FOCAL LENGTH... JUST LIKE THE WAY EYES WORK.... Ray, your stubborn adherence to PERSPECTIVE as an explanation of physical reality is flawed. What something LOOKS like in a photo - especially with shadows, angles and perspective - is the ultimate in subjectivity.... NOT OBJECTIVITY... ANSWER TO YOUR Q>>> They (the shadows moving away from the sun) "appear" to converge due to perspective, and that's all. shadows in the real world trace back thru that which is causing the shadow directly back to the source of light... NOT the other way around.... Sorry Ray, that physical reality doesn't change... the PERSPECTIVE of the view, does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 (edited) Are you saying that if I look at the actual shadows of two poles in the sunlight, rather than photos of the same, the shadows will not appear to converge both towards and away from the source of light i.e. the sun? Quote by DJ. "They (the shadows moving away from the sun) "appear" to converge due to perspective, and that's all. Shadows in the real world trace back thru that which is causing the shadow directly back to the source of light... NOT the other way around...." Not if you look towards the source of the light (ie. the sun), when the shadows appear to converge. Statement by David Josephs. "Ask yourself a LOGIC question Ray.... with a single source of light - regardless of how big, or how far, the shadows created by that light source will only converge in the direction of the light." Do you stand by it, despite being shown two photos, and one of your own, which proves you wrong in the above statement. Shadows appear to converge against the direction of the light, not just in the direction of the light, or are you too blind to see it? At least admit that. Then we may be able to move on. As Michael says a simple try with two poles will prove you wrong. Your line allegedly showing that the stair post shadow is pointing to a point about 5 yards behind the camera is wrong. You are confusing an artificial source of light to the light from the sun. Get over it. Edited February 12, 2019 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 On 2/1/2019 at 9:15 PM, Tony Krome said: I thought I'd throw up some of my old research; The photos below are the Oswald backyard photo and the re-enactment backyard photo from 3/31/67 Years ago, I sent cropped photos of just the shrub seen to the right of the men, to several garden/nursery businesses in the Dallas area They replied that couldn't identify the shrub from the photos, but suggested the shrub was possibly deciduous IF the shrub was deciduous, it suggests that the two photos below, depict two different seasons Also, the grass underfoot seems lush on one photo and somewhat barren on the other Thoughts? Ray. I'll have to admit you are one crafty old dude. You have managed to side track this topic twice and as you have done with others with your crappy ideas. It's time to get back onto the Krome topic of the timing of the BYPs. Krome notice there was a seasonality difference in 133-A, allegedly taken in March, and the 1967 CBS reproduction which is documented to March 31, 1967. The second, the 1967 photo, has cold weather depredation of foliage while the 1963 133-A shrub has foliage. What is you opinion of the timing of the BYPs or do you have no interest in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 1 hour ago, John Butler said: Ray, You refuse to understand this simple diagram by offering "facts" to dispute it. [/quote] No, I present photos which prove it, not sketches by some unknown incompetent poster Your argument goes a long ways toward explaining some of our arguments in the past. At one point I accused you of being a secret Lone Gunner. And, you denied this. I took your word for that at the time. But, that point keeps popping up from time to time. Sorry. Once again you show your total lack of understanding of anything. You are either blind or ignorant of my past record of posting on various forums. Sorry, Michael. Willfully ignorant is another way of saying he is a xxxx. Everyone knows what quad-x is and covers over. Oh? Didn't you tell me to shut up? You haven't answered my question. Where did call you a "XXXX"? [/quote] 1 hour ago, John Butler said: Do you fellas have another agenda other than legitimate jfk research? I don't know of anyone other than you two that would argue against the above information of Josephs as being inaccurate. The parallel lines do not converge or touch. The third cactus shadow may appear to but, magnify and you will see the lines come to a vanishing point without convergence which you have defined as touching. You've hitched your wagon to the wrong star, John. Whilst DJ provides much valuable contributions to this and other forums, he is totally wrong about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, John Butler said: Ray. I'll have to admit you are one crafty old dude. You have managed to side track this topic twice and as you have done with others with your crappy ideas. It's time to get back onto the Krome topic of the timing of the BYPs. Krome notice there was a seasonality difference in 133-A, allegedly taken in March, and the 1967 CBS reproduction which is documented to March 31, 1967. The second, the 1967 photo, has cold weather depredation of foliage while the 1963 133-A shrub has foliage. What is you opinion of the timing of the BYPs or do you have no interest in that? I have no intention of sidetracking any subject, but I will interject when somebody posts information which is false. Maybe you don't have the same ethos as I. As for my crappy ideas. There are none so blind as those who will not see. I have very interest in the actual time of the photographs, which if they are fake, as I believe, would show they were fake. Edited February 12, 2019 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 (edited) Sorry Ray. I have not hitched my wagon to the wrong star. Josephs is probably highly offended by the idea of any association with me. You probably need to apologize to him. If you will recall you and I have had this argument before on several occasions before Josephs took you to task. Ditto Josephs. I don't care for the man at all. But, you have to give him his due respect when he is right. You are wrong and wrong headed to continue this argument in the face of the truth. Edited February 12, 2019 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Well Ray, I should say I'm sorry by saying you have "crappy ideas". I should have chosen something else to say other than "crappy ideas". "Crappy ideas" is inappropriate language for this forum. I should have said something like strange ideas rather than "crappy ideas". Instead of "crappy ideas" I should have said weird ideas. You will forgive me for the inappropriate use of "crappy ideas"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Let's use the actual shadows from the image itself... If we slide OSWALD over to his right so that he is where the post is... the shadows SHOULD line up.. But the post shadow is pointed to 11:30 on a the face of a clock... the grey arrow is pointing to the POST SHADOW Now move Ozzie over and his shadow does not fall where the post shadow falls, but well over to his right - or about 10:00 on a clock face (if one drew a line from the post to the picket fence behind it) the way the image appears, the shadow of the post and Oswald virtually meet AT the picket fence... THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT RAY.... This is not some small shift ... this is impossible convergence within yards of the subject with the sun "supposedly" in the same place... This PROVES that the sides of the photo were not take at the same time of the day as the center portion where Ozzie is... and then lo to freakin' behold... we find there are copies of the image with the center portion marked specifically... with Oswald removed... (No I don't believe a word Det Brown said) The image is a composite of not only his face but of the background as well.... how much more proof do you want? And if the FBI and Post Office were so up on where he was and what magazines he was getting... Why do we not see a simple FBI/USPS report stating that one LEE OSWALD received a 5 foot carton from Klein Sporting Goods... wonder what THAT could be... ???? So here we have the POSTAL INSP OFFICE advising the FBI of Oswald's location.... the FBI even went by to check... yet over the next 2 weeks Oswald would receive a 5' carton AND a pistol via REA... both of which have no basis in reality... Talking about Oswald in the backyard with a rifle is as useful as asking how good a shot he was.... It has no bearing on the events.... 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