9 minutes ago, Michael Cross said:

How is that your point?  You say away from the sun and towards the sun?  What if the sun is not the light source Ray? 

 

This isn't about the sun.  The sun is too far away for you to perceive the divergence of light rays.  This is about perspective.

We are talking about shadows out in the open air, i.e sun light, not about some imaginary light source. You've already admitted that the shadows of the poles converge away from the viewer whether they are facing the sun or not.

1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

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][/url]

 

No reply, David?

3 minutes ago, Michael Cross said:

Ray, I'll try to find time to post a couple of test samples later, I don't have time right now.  While your position on this is technically correct, it ignores a constant phenomena in our perception of the world: Perspective. 

 

Lines ALWAYS converge to a point on the horizon.  Always.  This overrides the rays coming from a single point.  I have two photos of a fence - parallel lines. If your thesis were correct, fron one side they would not converge going away from the viewer, but they do - from both sides, looking into and away from the sun.  Perspective.  Railroad tracks do not really converge, but they seem to.

"Lines ALWAYS converge to a point on the horizon.  Always.  This overrides the rays coming from a single point.  I have two photos of a fence - parallel lines. If your thesis were correct, fron one side they would not converge going away from the viewer, but they do - from both sides, looking into and away from the sun.  Perspective.  Railroad tracks do not really converge, but they seem to."

Precisely my argument.

11 minutes ago, Michael Cross said:

No.  They converge to a point on the horizon away from the viewer.

i.e. away from the sun and towards the sun.

10 minutes ago, Michael Cross said:

Ray, I'll try to find time to post a couple of test samples later, I don't have time right now.  While your position on this is technically correct, it ignores a constant phenomena in our perception of the world: Perspective. 

 

Lines ALWAYS converge to a point on the horizon.  Always.  This overrides the rays coming from a single point.  I have two photos of a fence - parallel lines. If your thesis were correct, fron one side they would not converge going away from the viewer, but they do - from both sides, looking into and away from the sun.  Perspective.  Railroad tracks do not really converge, but they seem to.

"Lines ALWAYS converge to a point on the horizon.  Always.  This overrides the rays coming from a single point.  I have two photos of a fence - parallel lines. If your thesis were correct, fron one side they would not converge going away from the viewer, but they do - from both sides, looking into and away from the sun.  Perspective.  Railroad tracks do not really converge, but they seem to."

Agreed that they seem to,  (see my diary definition above ) and see my two photos of the poles above. Do you agree that they seem to converge birth awards and away from the sun?

"The Universe as now described is not infinite but, finite. " Where did you get that "fact" from?

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˚?

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"

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

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.

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)

verb (used without object), con·verged, con·verg·ing.

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...

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][/url]

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?

 

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...

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

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?

18 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Tony,

 

I always thought that the Oswald figure was superimposed on a background shot, and whoever did the superimposing (is that a real word?), did a sloppy job.

In your reproduction, the slots in the fence and the support posts for the stairs and the shed run pretty much straight up and down at 0 or 360 degree compass heading.

In the Oswald picture, the fence slats and support posts have a roughly 50 degree NE compass heading.

(Either that, or the contractor who built the shed and fencing needs to get another job.)

 

Steve Thomas

Agreed Steve, seems who ever concocted that photo made a cock up, and they had to adjust tilt in order to make the lean acceptable. When corrected look at the ridiculous angle "Oswald" is supposedly standing in this adjusted photo.

54 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

It is suspicious that all three photos match so well. I thought Jack White claimed that they were all the same background. But at the top of the post next to Oswald, on its right side, you can see where the roof of the house next store meets the post just below where the post meets the stairs. It is slightly different in all three photos. So it can't be the same background in all three images. 
 The horizontal position is an exact match. The story was that she did not know how to operate the camera so He walked over and advanced the film for her between shots. I guess it is possible that she stood in the same spot the whole time and that would explain the amazing alignment

I wondered about that Chris, However, using the same camera,  which didn't have a zoom feature, and standing in the same spot, how come "Oswald" in CE133B is closer to the camera than he is in the other two photos?

In the three BYP, note that the perspective of the items in the background, the fence, to the left of him,  the stair post shadows and the position of the fence posts to the right of him,  immediately behind  "Oswald" does not change at all. If the three photos had been taken at different times, as per Marina's testimony, this would not have happened. She would have had to have been in exactly the same place.

From David's post above re the Hesters

"Hesters:  There is a real problem with identifying the Hesters as the people identified as the Hesters in this scene.  Jack White, long ago said this couple are the Hesters. He was wrong.  According to their testimony they were positioned on the south side of Elm Street and then after the shooting moved to the north side of Elm Street to the Arcade seeking shelter."

David, just as a matter of interest, maybe the Hesters meant that they were on the south side of the original Elm St, which runs just in front of the TSBD. There is/was a grassy slope in between the old Elm St and the new freeway approach Elm St. The fact that they then moved to the north side of the street to the Arcade appears to make sense.

Was the Freeway approach  Elm Street known by that name in 1963?

p.s. I back completely the comments about David, by Mssrs Healey, Di Eugenio and Cross.

Here you go, David

http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/colt-commando-38-special-c11487/

I was just about to post this, Micah. You beat me to it.

19 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Lewis - since the Lennon assassination link to Op 40 was news to me I did some searching. Seems like everything available repeats the same info without enough sourcing. I have always wondered if Lennon’s murder was political. Have you looked deeply into this theory?

Paul, I spoke on a radio interview with Cynthia Lennon, John's first wife, some years ago, and asked her what she thought of the theory that he was murdered for his political ideas, and her cryptic reply was "I can't comment on that". I wondered then and still wonder now, why she said it.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ray:

You never read Moldea's book.

Towards the end, he tries to explain that whole thing away with one of the most wild, bizarre scenarios that I ever read.  I spent several pages breaking it apart and showing how absurd it was in The Assassinations.

I concluded that if one had to go to these lengths then it proved the contrary to what the author was proposing.

Interesting Jim. I've never read his books and from the sound of it, I don't know whether I should.

Even the prosecution agreed that RFK was shot in the head, from as close as one inch, and yet considered the shooter to be Sirhan when he was never within three feet of the senator. 

Can any of the "Sirhan did it" supporters, explain that away?

How disappointing that Obama wasn't prepared to put his head above the parapet.

On 1/19/2019 at 4:54 AM, Ron Bulman said:

Thanks for the link Ray.  I'd never seen it.  Finally found time.  Amazing that we in the USA, a Democracy, have to depend on the BBC for a Honest report.  All should watch for first hand reports, and deception.  

Glad to help. Ron.

link to the above mentioned BBC documentary "Dead in the water"