Michael Cross

3 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305165

 

Is this what that's referring to?

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

59 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Any anybody been in the sewers on the south knoll?

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.

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

That's not being humble Francois, that's being gullible.

By your standards, you would not have believed that the U.S. government was involved in any of the following activities, had they not been exposed by critics like us:

• The assassination of foreign leaders.
• Coups carried out in foreign countries.
• Experimentation of LSD on U.S. citizens without their knowledge or consent.
• Experimentation of nuclear radiation on U.S. citizens without their knowledge or consent .
• Plans for false-flag operations where innocent people, including U.S. citizens, would have been injured or killed.
• The sale of hard drugs to children in order to support activities like those listed above.

 

Nice job Sandy.  

16 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.

Edit: I didn't see this in David's post.  This diagram only shows one side - looking into the sun, - and the shadows would converge in the other direction from the other side.  This shows lines going to a point on the horizon - perspective.

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? 

No, Willfully Ignorant is entirely different from lying.  Entirely.  Being a xxxx is being willfully dishonest.  Refusing to take 2 minutes to go outside and take two photos is a demonstration of willful ignorance, or perhaps lacking the courage of one's convictions - cowardice.   

 

* and what the hell is quad-x?

Quote

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.

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?

20 minutes ago, John Butler said:

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 touch.  Pay more attention to what David Josephs said.

I guess I have to live with being willfully ignorant and I should shut up as told.  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 is Michael Clark while you folk are disparaging my character.  He once warned me not to speak of your mental health and rightfully so.  Where is he now when you, Michael Cross and Ray Mitcham, take away my civil rights and abuse my character?

 

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.

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'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.

17 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

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

I believe that I did!

On 2/6/2019 at 3:05 PM, 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.

Willful ignorance.  Perfect.

17 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.

 

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

1 hour ago, Michael Cross said:

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

 

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.

5 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Ray...

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...

 

 

 

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.

14 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

"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?

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

6 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

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

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.

17 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Thanks guys....

I fully understand that in many cases opinions form the theories on which research and experimentation is performed...

Moderators are not here to dissuade baseless opinions from appearing on these pages... 

WE are.

If your opinions cannot stand the light of day - or the simply "how did you get there?", 
it's the opinion that needs reconsidering...

If you can't even do that...or even let yourself read the work of those who do and can....

 why are you here?  

 

 

What he said.

25 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

let me be blunt: if David Joseph's is posting I want to read it.

What he said.