Jump to content
The Education Forum
Tony Krome

Backyard Photo Observation

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

This photo has different highlight aspects indicating a composite figure.  The brightness has been increased to show the highlights on the figure in a clearer manner.

oswald-byp-highlight-comparison.jpg

No. 1 concerns the highlights on the face.  These highlights are from a light source to the front and above.  This light also produces the shadow under the nose.

2.  Indicates the highlights on the shoulders.  They are not quite the same.  The highlights on the left should are bright with no shadows.  The highlights on the right side have shadows.  Which is particularly pronounce in no. 3 and no. 4.

3 and 4.  These are darker areas that should not be there in reference to the rest of the lighting of the Oswald figure.

3 and 6.  These areas show the brightly lit forearm and hand.  The area directly below the brightly lit right forearm is in dark shadow that goes down to the rifle stock.  The rifle stock has an incongruous area brightly lit at the top with deep shadow below.  The highlighted part of the stock is not in tune with the rest of the photo.  There is no shadow of the newspaper on the Oswald figure.

5.  Points to the legs.  They are lit from the front except the upper part of the right leg.

And,

3.  The brightly lit forearm with dark shirt shadow holding the newspaper may indicate this is from another photo pasted into this photo.

3 and 4 versus 2 and 6 may indicate two sides of two photos of the figure pasted together.

With this kind of brightness the shadow of the Oswald figure looks painted.

1. The shadow under the nose appears to land directly under the nose as if the Sun was directly above. But the tip of the nose is not centered because Oswald is looking to his left about 2 degrees. So if you draw a line from the tip of his nose to the tip of the shadow you will find  a 4 degree angle. Furthermore his head is tilted 3 or 4 degree to the side(Towards the Sun) That eliminates 3 or 4 degrees of shadow angle.
       The elevation was about 50 degrees but what determines the shadow angle is less about elevation and more about whether you are facing towards the Sun or not. When you turn 90 degrees away from the Sun you will see all 50 degrees of elevation represented in a nose shadow. But if you turn 90 degrees to face the sun it will be directly above the nose and you will see zero shadow angle. It will fall directly below the nose if all else is equal(No head tilt). So Oswald was facing about 9 degrees away from the Sun and should show about 9 degrees shadow angle under the nose(The increase from zero to 50 degrees shadow as you turn away from the Sun is not proportional. It is about doubled for the first 20 degrees or so. Oswald facing 9 degrees away from the Sun create about 9 degrees of shadow. 4 degrees are visible from nose tip to shadow tip. 3 or 4  more degrees are neutralized because of his head tilt. that is 7 or 8 degrees accounted for and we should see 9, so there is only one degree missing.

2. Oswalds right arm is drawn back a bit and that creates more shadow on the biceps from the fold in his short sleeve. 

3 and 4. The shadow of the telephone lines cross Oswalds lower body and cross his right hip near his holster. Also his hip is angled back by about 20 degrees which may cause more shadow on his right.

6. The rifle stock and part of the scope were modified by Life Mag because the image was not contrasted well. So we can't really know what was there originally. The telephone line shadows also cross the rifle in that area.

5. Looks like the telephone line shadow on the upper right leg.

5a. I find it hard to evaluate the arm brightness because the exposure, film stock and printing can all distort relationships of dark and light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

Since the shadows appear to move in different directions.  I think they show 3 time periods.  Your opinion would be greatly valued.

What time of the day would you put on the step shadows striking the fence?

What time of the day would you place on the Oswald figure's shadow?

What time of the day would you place on the Oswald figure's nose shadow?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

133b is a larger image overall. everything is about 5% bigger. Here is a photo I shopped to add lower legs to 133b. The image is also rotated and adjusted for size. Still I can't see why he appears further forward in 133b yet his head and knees seem to be in the same place relative to the background. Still a mystery there.
 Once the lower legs are added you see the lower body shadow leans as much as 133a and c yet Oswald is not leaning. Strange. It also puts his feet way in front of the post yet his head and holster line up in the same places.


 

 

If you agree, Chris, how do you account for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Any thoughts on why the ghost cut-out is so much more skewed to the background than the actual 133-C?

That background does not work with that image of Oswald with the Fence included...  Oswald here is superimposed over the ghost image, exactly.

Doesn't this prove the other images were created?

133962474_Image3-Oswald-BYP-ghost-COPY-misalignment.thumb.jpg.034f024f272fe5918cce510699899dd1.jpg

 

The actual shadow from that stair post creates a conflict with the Oswald shadow given the light source was indeed over the camera's right shoulder....  we should see a post shadow which tracks back thru the post, to the light source... it does not...

762949527_BYPwithstandinin133-cpose-shadowsbetraythefakedimage.thumb.jpg.54fab7b6fe5226c2232100e8bf37d143.jpg

David, I've explained this to you before. Vertical shadows from the sun always converge , not diverge, towards or away from the sun

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep.  I’ve been waiting for the emergence of Ray Mitcham and his idea fixe notion of converging not conflicting shadows in the BYPs. Here are two bits of info from the internet:

“Parallel lines are two lines, that are always the same distance apart and never touch. In order for two lines to be parallel, they must be drawn in the same plane, a perfectly flat surface like a wall or sheet of paper. ... Any line that has the same slope as the original will never intersect with it.”

“All parallel lines receding into the distance are drawn to converge at one or more vanishing points on the horizon line. in one-point linear perspective, receding lines converge to one vanishing point. ... A point on the eye-level line, toward which parallel lines are made to recede and meet in perspective drawing.”

The very definition of parallel lines do not allow the lines to converge.  It is the illusion of distance that renders the notion of convergence.  The second info bit above is for artists and others who deal with perspective.  As an artist I live or die on the canvas by using perspective properly. 

Parallel lines never converge even at a great distance.  They simply vanish into the distance at what is called a “vanishing point”.  That is the proper use of perspective.

parallel-lines.jpg

You can operationally define parallel lines to converge if you add the notion of infinity.  But, that is a special condition of math.

If apparent parallel objects such as shadows in the BYPs are said to converge at some point then overlap they are not parallel simply based on the definition of parallel lines.  Parallel lines as shadows are from a single light source.  If they are not parallel then they will have different sources, different light sources.  And, that is what we see in the BYPs.  The distance in the BYPs at the Neeley Street home is to small to show any great convergence or overlap as suggested by Ray.

Ray’s use of perpective is an improper use of convergence suggesting converging shadows that overlap in such a short distance as the backyard at Neeley Street.

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

David, I've explained this to you before. Vertical shadows from the sun always converge , not diverge, towards or away from the sun

Sorry, Ray but that’s simply not true... shadows trace back thru that which is creating the shadow to the light source..

They will ALWAYS converge at the light source... laws of physics...

How-to-draw-shadows-in-perspective.jpg.9c54e921c0cc1c1b9cdbe565f2f4a926.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Sorry, Ray but that’s simply not true... shadows trace back thru that which is creating the shadow to the light source..

They will ALWAYS converge at the light source... laws of physics...

How-to-draw-shadows-in-perspective.jpg.9c54e921c0cc1c1b9cdbe565f2f4a926.jpg

If that is true, perhaps you can explain how these shadows of two vertical poles, both towards and from the sun converge.

 

[url=https://postimg.cc/rzdmZ9y1]poles4.jpg[/url]

 

Poles5.jpg

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Yep.  I’ve been waiting for the emergence of Ray Mitcham and his idea fixe notion of converging not conflicting shadows in the BYPs. Here are two bits of info from the internet:

“Parallel lines are two lines, that are always the same distance apart and never touch. In order for two lines to be parallel, they must be drawn in the same plane, a perfectly flat surface like a wall or sheet of paper. ... Any line that has the same slope as the original will never intersect with it.”

“All parallel lines receding into the distance are drawn to converge at one or more vanishing points on the horizon line. in one-point linear perspective, receding lines converge to one vanishing point. ... A point on the eye-level line, toward which parallel lines are made to recede and meet in perspective drawing.”

The very definition of parallel lines do not allow the lines to converge.  It is the illusion of distance that renders the notion of convergence.  The second info bit above is for artists and others who deal with perspective.  As an artist I live or die on the canvas by using perspective properly. 

Parallel lines never converge even at a great distance.  They simply vanish into the distance at what is called a “vanishing point”.  That is the proper use of perspective.

parallel-lines.jpg

You can operationally define parallel lines to converge if you add the notion of infinity.  But, that is a special condition of math.

If apparent parallel objects such as shadows in the BYPs are said to converge at some point then overlap they are not parallel simply based on the definition of parallel lines.  Parallel lines as shadows are from a single light source.  If they are not parallel then they will have different sources, different light sources.  And, that is what we see in the BYPs.  The distance in the BYPs at the Neeley Street home is to small to show any great convergence or overlap as suggested by Ray.

Ray’s use of perpective is an improper use of convergence suggesting converging shadows that overlap in such a short distance as the backyard at Neeley Street.

"Parallel lines never converge even at a great distance."

Of course they converge. (see above post)

Note I did not say meet.

"The distance in the BYPs at the Neeley Street home is to small to show any great convergence or overlap as suggested by Ray"

 

Rubbish.(see above post)

 

 

 

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.
Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

Since the shadows appear to move in different directions.  I think they show 3 time periods.  Your opinion would be greatly valued.

What time of the day would you put on the step shadows striking the fence?

What time of the day would you place on the Oswald figure's shadow?

What time of the day would you place on the Oswald figure's nose shadow?

 

Since no one has tried to answer the questions above that makes me think they may not be worth answering.  My ability to do research on the internet has been limited.  A search on what hour of the day is shown in the BYPs results in McAdams, Von Pein sites, etc. and essentially unrelated sites and materials.

First off one should dismiss the shadow under LHO's nose.  It is unrelated to the picture and is a foreign object if you believe Oswald and most people who have looked at it and agree with Jack White.  I have used that as one of the examples of conflicting shadows.  Technically, that is correct since it is different.  But, probably not a good use since it is a foreign object pasted into the picture.

I see two times in the BYPs based upon the step shadows and the shadow of the Oswald figure.  By guessing I would say the step shadows are in the Morning.  Tom Wilson checking Jack White's work said the time was 9:12 AM.  The Oswald figure's shadow I see as an afternoon shadow of about 1 or 2 o'clock.  Chris Bristow says the time in the photo is about 1 o'clock.

Tony Krome's idea that the BYPs and the CBS reproduction of 1967 happened in different seasons base on the seasonality of the foliage on the shrub seen in both photos opens up new possibilities in the study of the BYPs.  There is a real probability the BYPs were shot in Sept. of 1963 rather than March, 1963 based on the condition of the shrub in the photos.  The Vernal and Autumnal Equinoxes allow for the same sunlight seen in the two photos. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only shadow which you can rely on is the shadow of the stair post. The shadows of "Oswald" are suspect because he may or not be standing vertically

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You can operationally define parallel lines to converge if you add the notion of infinity.  But, that is a special condition of math."

I should have added this to that sentence "but, not reality."

Why unreal?  The Universe as now described is not infinite but, finite.  There is a boundary to the Universe at something like 13 billion light years.  Beyond is Nothing.  That is Nothing with a capital N.  There is no known concept that can describe or be attributed to Nothing. 

The idea that parallel lines converge at any distance is nonsense.  It is not science, it is superstition.

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


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

The only shadow which you can rely on is the shadow of the stair post. The shadows of "Oswald" are suspect because he may or not be standing vertically

Is Oswald standing?  Or, is he laying on he ground or flying?

Standing vertically is simply a variation of standing and casting a shadow.  It would make some difference in the time but, it would not be a grand difference.  That is why I say about 1:00 or 2:00.

Share this post


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

"You can operationally define parallel lines to converge if you add the notion of infinity.  But, that is a special condition of math."

I should have added this to that sentence "but, not reality."

Why unreal?  The Universe as now described is not infinite but, finite.  There is a boundary to the Universe at something like 13 billion light years.  Beyond is Nothing.  That is Nothing with a capital N.  There is no known concept that can describe or be attributed to Nothing. 

The idea that parallel lines converge at any distance is nonsense.  It is not science, it is superstition.

From definition of converge.
"incline toward each other"

Share this post


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

Is Oswald standing?  Or, is he laying on he ground or flying?

Standing vertically is simply a variation of standing and casting a shadow.  It would make some difference in the time but, it would not be a grand difference.  That is why I say about 1:00 or 2:00.

Would the angle of his shadow be the same if he leaning sideways at an angle of 45˚?

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

×