Michael Cross

Says three, shows two. Nothing about this case is what it seems.

Love the idea for Joe. (let people contribute to your life - it's a gift for them) Micah, I climbed in the manhole below the Zapruder pedestal around 1997. Don't have the specific date.

Nice job Sandy.

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.

Perspective. Appearance (perspective) vs. what is physically happening (physical science). Can't we come to this agreement and move on?

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.

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.

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.

I believe that I did!

Willful ignorance. Perfect.

You need to take your phone outside and photograph the shadows from vertical lines looking into and away from the sun. Like I did. Do the experiment or withdraw your criticism of Ray, because he's correct. The visual phenomena is known as 1 point perspective, and it can be replicated. So do some work.

Ray is correct however. I misunderstood him. https://thevirtualinstructor.com/onepointperspective.html

Did you miss this post?

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

Still trying to upload a couple of shots . . . for some reason the "drag here" option has vanished.

Rare for me to disagree with you, but the photo above is irrelevant if I understand it. The view is from above. You'd have to have a view from on the plane of the letters to be relevant. These lines never converge: But these lines APPEAR to: Edited for clarity of point.

LOL, I may have misunderstood you Ray. Sorry for that.

And I'll drop out because this is pointless. Your shadows converge to a point on the horizon away from the viewer in BOTH photos. If you were to view glow in the dark lines with NO LIGHT SOURCE THEY WOULD CONVERGE TO A POINT ON THE HORIZON AWAY FROM THE VIEWER. And if you put any other parallel lines in a photo looking across the direction of the sun rather than into or away from it - they also converge to a point on the horizon AWAY FROM THE VIEWER. Always. Always. Always. Consistency. You're arguing the wrong point. Are the shadows consistent and predictable?

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.

I can't get my photos uploaded at the moment - too big and I don't have time. But regardless, this will always happen. Consistency is the issue.

And here's the thing: We should be discussing the consistency of shadows within a photograph. If the sun is the light source shadows will fall in a consistent and predictable manner throughout the photo.

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

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.

What he said.

What he said.