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. 

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.

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.

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.

2 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Funny, I feel exactly the same buddy... 

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?

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.

 

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

 

 

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

You never answered my question by the way.

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]

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 . 

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

 

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. 

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

... 

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?

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.

4 hours ago, Michael Cross said:

Willful ignorance.  Perfect.

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

33 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Hello Mister Mitcham.
Just passing by.
I'm sorry, I have been away for a while, because I have so much work to do.
But I intend to come back soon, since I have some interetsing things to say, indeed.
Now, just what is your question ? You want to know what I have to say about the document uploaded by David Josephs that stipulates that Oswald acknowledged that he did have an encounter with Marrion Baker et Roy Truly on the second floor ?
Well, that's nothing new.
Lee Oswald was inside the building and therefore cannot be the so-called "prayer man". That's an absolute fact.
The rest is just a waste of time.

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

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

41 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

and are these the same Hester's that found themselves on Elm Street during JFK's murder, right?

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

30 minutes ago, Ian Lloyd said:

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1159p50-back-yard-photography

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.

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

I need to do no such thing.  Ray and I have been at cross purposes for years on this issue and others.  He likes to prove that I am mistaken on this and other issues.  This is one of his milder emergences.  In actually, he is simply redirecting the conversation away from the topic at hand.

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. .

12 hours ago, John Butler said:

"This topic has come up several times in past months, and each time has devolved to two opposing camps effectively talking past each other. "

Yeah, that's generally what happens when Ray brings up his converging shadows argument.  He is just misdirecting the conversation and he usually succeeds in taking people away from a topic under discussion for awhile.

 

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

2 hours ago, Michael Cross said:

Did you miss this post? 

 

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.

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

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

The notion I mentioned earlier of an idee fixe is defined as "an idea that dominates one's mind especially for a prolonged period". 

You can not reason with Ray on this subject.  I generally reach a Gump point where in the movie Forrest says "That's all I got you say about that"

"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?

4 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

A Facebook member who follows the membership and support of over 250 organizations and websites devoted to study the JFK assassination reported recently that he has noticed a severe decline in public interest in the topic over the past year.  He noted that one organization has lost over 1000 members. His research raises the question as to why this decline is taking place. Could it be that public has finally concluded that the mystery surrounding the death of JFK 56 years ago will never be solved? Or could it be that the millions born since 1963 have received little education information about the entire topic? What ever the cause his research finding is disturbing.

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

23 minutes ago, Michael Cross said:

Fixed.  Same day, a few seconds apart, looking away from and into the sun.  Lines converge away from viewer in both directions.  

 

https://thevirtualinstructor.com/onepointperspective.html

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.

4 minutes ago, Michael Cross said:

 

Consistency.  You're arguing the wrong point.

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