Ray Mitcham

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.

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.

Michael, it seems you can't fix stupid.

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.

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?

Obviously, otherwise the shadows wouldn't be parallel. One day you may understand, David. I can't go on showing you are wrong. You never answered my question by the way.

You do understand the meaning of "converge", John? converge [kuhn-vurj] SYNONYMS|EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGIN SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR converge ON THESAURUS.COM 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 . (of a sequence) to have values eventually arbitrarily close to some number; to have a finite limit. (of an infinite series) to have a finite sum; to have a sequence of partial sums that converges. (of an improper integral) to have a finite value. (of a net) to be residually in every neighborhood of some point. Sounds a good idea. Still no answer to my question by the way,John. Can't answer it?

"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.

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. 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

Ochus Campbell said he saw Oswald in the locker room just inside the vestibule door, just after the shooting. How could he, if Oswald was upstairs?

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

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

Do you also believe that the world is flat, Francois?

I wonder what DVP and the Frenchie will have to say about it.

Apparently the Hester in Dealey Plaza was Charles Hester, the guy who saw the photos was Robert.

Thanks, Ian , I did know that they had mentioned it before but wasn't aware of the latest details.

A further anomaly in the three backyard photos is the shadow of the power cables on the stairpost. The shadows appear to move down the posts about 6”, (133A to 1333C) . This would appear to be due to the change in the elevation of the sun. Perhaps someone could work out how long that would take. However, to achieve this change in elevation, at the same time, the sun would have moved further West*, but the shadows of the stair post, and fence posts haven't changed. (If the elevation changed then so should the angle of the azimuth.) Can anybody explain this? *Before the resident pedants chime in, I know the sun doesn't actually move West, it's the Earth rotating towards the East.

Are you Brian Doyle in disguise? Try answering my question. How do you disagree with what I said about the shadows? All you have to do is do what I and Michael have said, is to plant two poles in the ground and photograph the shadows. I will always be at cross purposes with a purveyor of false information. No matter which side they support. It is not one of my "milder emergencies" (whatever that means) Just stick to the proven facts, John. Shouldn't be too hard for a genius like yourself. .

No, like when I correct you, John. I was pointing out the fallacy of David's argument about the shadow of the stair post. My only intention is to correct incorrect information, unlike you. By the way you never answered my question. (No surprise that you didn't) What do you disagree with over my shadow comments?

Schools don't realise what a coup d"etat took place on 23rd November 1963

Sorry, Michael. I did miss your post. I must have been posting at the time you posted. Thank you for agreeing with me. Now perhaps you could try to educate John Butler. "Ray apparently needs to re-educate himself in science. I would suggest physics, math, and astronomy." Apparently not as much as your need, John. On which point about the shadow direction do you disagree with me, John?

If we made a phone app, they might get interested.

Which is what I said when I posted my photos of the vertical poles. Seems you agree. Anybody can prove it to themselves with two poles and some sunshine.

"In the bottom image, there must be something about the details of the photo which cause the shadows to appear as if they are converging OPPOSITE the light source." You mean you think it is fake? David you are forgetting that the light source is the sun which is 864thousand miles wide,93 million miles away, not some imaginary light bulb behind the camera. Light radiates in all directions from any source of light. the sun is no exception. The sun is so far away that by the time the light reaches earth, it is essentially parallel Everything on earth you see lit by the sun is illuminated from the same direction.

No, I was correcting David's point made seventeen hours ago.