Jump to content
The Education Forum
Tony Krome

Backyard Photo Observation

Recommended Posts

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
23 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

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

https://postimg.cc/hX0PQyMB

The key word you have here Ray is APPEAR.  The shadows APPEAR TO CONVERGE.... and only because of perspective.

In the real world with real physics and without perspective... parallel lines continue on infinitely the same distance from each other...

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... Look at my other image....

the light source is in front of the camera... the shadows of the fence  CONVERGE due to distance and perspective...  If I was to stand to the side of the shadows, they'd all appear straight.

more%20on%20shadow%20and%20perspective_z

 

You truly need to understand this illustration to understand perspective...  

 

The%20math%20of%20the%20BYP%20shadows_zp

 

yet%20another%20BYP%20shadow%20example_z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Michael Cross said:

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.

Exactly Michael... and that is exactly what I am going after... exaggerated of course but still the same point....  the angle at which the stair post is casting a shading CONFLICTS with the shadow of the man in the image....

I found these images of the Oswald(s)... the shadow faling behind each man is virtually the same yet the shadow on the nose and the left side of his face is the real problem here...

 nose%20shadows%20and%20the%20box_zps5qra

 

Oswald%201957%20versus%20BYP_zpsmcofo6he

Share this post


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

The key word you have here Ray is APPEAR.  The shadows APPEAR TO CONVERGE.... and only because of perspective.

In the real world with real physics and without perspective... parallel lines continue on infinitely the same distance from each other...[/quote]

Obviously, otherwise the shadows wouldn't be parallel.

5 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

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... Look at my other image....

the light source is in front of the camera... the shadows of the fence  CONVERGE due to distance and perspective...  If I was to stand to the side of the shadows, they'd all appear straight.

more%20on%20shadow%20and%20perspective_z

 

You truly need to understand this illustration to understand perspective...  

 

The%20math%20of%20the%20BYP%20shadows_zp

 

yet%20another%20BYP%20shadow%20example_z

One day you may understand, David. I can't go on showing you are wrong. 

 

You never answered my question by the way.

Share this post


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

One day you may understand, David. I can't go on showing you are wrong. 

 

You never answered my question by the way.

Funny, I feel exactly the same buddy... :cheers

Which question are you referring to Ray?

Share this post


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

Funny, I feel exactly the same buddy... :cheers

Which question are you referring to Ray?

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?)

 

And what was your question David?

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


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

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?

 

My god.  Ok buddy.  How is what I posted an a hominem attack?  (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. It's the opposite - I asked you to present your own evidence.  Either have the courage to back up your assertion by posting evidence, or please be quiet. 

 

Perspective is a phenomena that's been understood by humanity for 600 years.  This isn't rocket science.

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

×
×
  • Create New...