Ray Mitcham
-
Posts
1,867 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Ray Mitcham
-
-
9 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:
While talking with Mrs. Nelson, one of the Secret Service men who had been bruised or had a minor injury came to me and asked if there was another way out of the building.
Why would a secret service man want to know if there was another way out fo the building? Strange.
-
6 hours ago, Fred Litwin said:
Well, not my cup of tea. Most of your questions, I am sure you can answer. If you want to buy my book, fine. And, if not, fine too. A lot of the answers are in my book.
Fred, it matters little if the answers in your book are to the wrong questions.
-
From the above source.
"There are no burns or hemorrhages in the oral cavity."
-
The argument isn't about that, Michael. It's about whether the shadows cast by the sun, appear to converge both towards and away from the sun. The statement made was "Shadows converge towards the source of light... the shadows in the BYP converge in the opposite direction..." which is what they should appear to do.
-
Two photos...same poles first facing away from the sun and second facing towards the sun. In each the shadows appear to converge.
Should stop the arguing but I doubt it.
-
6 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:
For anyone not convinced by the photographic proof both Ray and I have provided there is a simple way to resolve this for yourself. Simply walk outside and place two objects about two feet apart. Line up so one object casts it's shadow almost directly behind the object, I.E with the Sun at your back. You will instantly find that shadows can appear to converge exactly as demonstrated in the photographs we provided. This is really a debate we did not need to have because you can prove it to yourself in a couple minutes.
If anyone wants to argue this further I would ask that you first spend a couple minutes outside and test the theory.
Thanks, Chris.
What does the old proverb say "There are none so blind as those who don't want to se". Trying to convince Butler is like trying to knit spaghetti.
-
29 minutes ago, John Butler said:
Sigh, sigh,
Sit up and pay attention. David Josephs has given you boys an education in lights and shadows. I challenge you to find a clearer, more concise, and elegant explanation on how a light source creates shadows.
Ray you need to get a dictionary and look up the word parallel. Well, I'll do that for you:
Definition of parallel
1 a : extending in the same direction, everywhere equidistant (see equidistant 1), and not meeting- parallel rows of trees
b : everywhere equally distant- concentric spheres are parallel
Parallel lines do not converge or diverge.
Ray, David was just being polite to you. ""Ray - thank you for the example and the patience. It does indeed appear as if shadows can be made to look like they converge to a vanishing point based on perspective." The operative word here is "made to". He is being less polite in the last sentence of his post most recent post. "When learning to Draw... Shadow, light and perspective works... They do not in those BOYs by a magnitude much higher than is possible in the natural, unedited world"
Did you understand what he was saying?"Parallel lines do not converge or diverge."
I have never said they do. They appear to converge due to perspective, what do you not understand about that?
Do you agree that parallel shadows appear to converge whether they are facing towards the sun or away from, John?
-
2 hours ago, David Josephs said:
Sigh...
It is not the angle of the shadow but the line running thru the shadow then thru the object back to the source of light.... On a flat surface of course.
Shadows can never converge in the opposite direction of the light source...
Bottom right of this image... The fence shadows and the boy's shadow converge TOWARDS the sun.
You are totally wrong, David. Sigh as much as you want. It won't change physics.
Tell me whether you think the shadows shown in the color photo above are converging or diverging, David.
Or are the shadows converging or diverging in this photo?
"The fence shadows and the boy's shadow converge TOWARDS the sun."
Agreed, but as I said above the shadows, because rather are parallel, will appear to converge towards the sun or away from the sun, due to perspective.
Incidentally this is what you eventually replied after we had the same the same argument in 2015, on the Deep Politics Forum.
"Ray - thank you for the example and the patience. It does indeed appear as if shadows can be made to look like they converge to a vanishing point based on perspective."
-
12 hours ago, David Josephs said:
they converge in the wrong direction Ray... Shadows converge towards the source of light... the shadows in the BYP converge in the opposite direction...
not possible.... like the image on the right... all the shadows converge towards the light... if the gray arrow was a shadow in this image, it would stick out like a sore thumb...
Michael C... the most telling to me is this... when we put Oswald back into the Ghost image, (in a pose not seen until 1977 - so how did they know to put Det Brown and the ghost cutout in the one pose no one sees for 14 years?)
magic...
Quote by David.
"they converge in the wrong direction Ray... Shadows converge towards the source of light... the shadows in the BYP converge in the opposite direction..."
"They also converge away from the source of light (in this case the sun) sun. Because the shadows are parallel, whether looking towards the source of light or away from it they will appear to converge because of perspective.
If you don't believe this then please show me a photo where this doesn't happen.
This photo shows how the stair post shadow looks as it does. It depends on the position of the camera
If the camera had been slightly to the right of where it was, then the shadow of the left stick would have disappeared directly behind the stick..
-
23 minutes ago, Michael Cross said:
I guess so Ray. Nonetheless, for those thinking critically, IMO looking at that photo as comparison, you can see the convergence AND see that something is off in the BYP.
Agreed Michael. I've always said I believe the BYP are faked, but also try to point out posts which do not add up.
-
Michael, no matter how many photos you show him, he still won't admit the shadows appear to converge both away from the sun and towards it, due to perspective. They stay parallel but appear to converge.
-
Thanks, David.
-
Was Oswald 's signature not found in an atomic energy site visitor's book? I remember reading about it but can't remember where and when.
-
45 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:
Not available here, Micah.
"
This page is not available in your area.
Our servers have detected that you are accessing this site from a country that is a member of the European Union. This content is not available in your region."
-
You have nothing to hide have you, David? Not ashamed to say?
If you do make money from it, you shouldn't advertise your site on here.
-
8 hours ago, François Carlier said:
Of course !
It's exactly the same mechanism.
The assassination of JFK by Lee Oswald and the moon landings are historical facts, backed by overwhelming, undeniable evidence. Period.
But there are conspiracy believers who refuse to accept the facts and prefer to deny history.
You are no different from the people who deny that NASA put a man on the moon. You use the very same tactics. You just do that for another event, that's all.
So we can safely say that you fall in the category called "conspiracy theorists".François, Please supply your "overwhelming undeniable evidence" that Oswald assassinated JFK.
-
What are we supposed to be seeing? It's no good arrowing something without saying what you think you can see.
-
4 hours ago, John Butler said:
Ray,
I have lots to say to you. Read the quoted material.
" "
I would be interested if you had "Lots of sensible things to say " to me. Unfortunately you don't. Your quoted material is, as you proven since your arrival on the forum, rubbish. I won't be answering any of your comments to me in future. But I won't put you on ignore as I enjoy shooting you down regularly.
-
13 minutes ago, John Butler said:
Joseph's comments are bringing around to me the notion that he may be a secret "Lone Gunner". His manipulation of what I have posted is second rate.
"Visual and cognitive diarrhea" may be better than just throwing documents and photos at a situation and leaving it up to the viewer to figure it out. The problem with Josephs is I have corrected on more than one occasion his slipshod research. This has generated hatred.
Actually, I have destroyed one of his threads concerning firing angles and the 6th floor Sniper's Nest, a complicated piece. I made the comment you can't prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone fired a weapon from the 6th floor Sniper's Nest. From that point on he produced vile and insulting remarks the least of which is calling me an Anti-Cointelpro Agent, whatever that is.
I have in recent posts offered an olive branch but, I see that has been rejected.
The obvious Lone Gunners on this forum will gang up, as they have in the past, to try and shut down what I am saying with brilliant comments from folks like Ron Bulman's "Horse cocci."
Michael Clark has reminded me I should watch what I say and behave myself while responding. Thanks Michael, I am studying Life on Earth more seriously.
Maybe you should come back down onto Earth.
-
I'm with you Michael. It's freezing down here.
-
Something which I find unanswerable. The De Mohrenschildt back Yard photo shows much more detail and is crisper in focus. How can this be when the photos were all taken with the same camera?
-
The photo she tore up was a photo of Oswald hunting in Russia where he was photographed holding a shotgun above his head.
-
Does anybody believe anything the plagiarist Posner writes?
-
Trouble is the autopsy photos show the exit wound to be at the middle of the top his head. Your version would be the front part of the top of the head. The blow out shown in the Zap film is to the right of his head a shown in Cory's photo above. How could the entrance and the exit be there?
Ice bullets
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Ray Mitcham
Bennett admitted in his statement that he wasn't looking at the President when he heard the first "fire cracker" like shot.
“At this point, I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a fire cracker. Immediately on hearing the supposed fire cracker, looked at the boss's car. At the exact time I saw a shot that hit the boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder.a second shot followed almost immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head”
This could be construed as him seeing the second shot hitting JFK in the back, or that he saw the result of the first shot on JFK's shoulder, and then the second shot hitting the President in the head.