Jump to content
The Education Forum

Backyard Photographs


Recommended Posts

Geez,

It seems folks will go to any length to keep the BYP's authentic.  You have been given incontrovertible proof that the photos are fake.  You can come back with fantastical reasoning using any metric you choose but, it still does not stop rational people from looking at the evidence and seeing reality.

I will repeat what I said earlier "I am not talking about diverging, converging, or vertical parallel items.  I am talking about 3 different shadows going in 3 different directions at the same time.  That violates physics unless our Solar System has 3 suns."

Sorry, I can't post a BYP with arrows showing the shadow directions.  Were only allowed a 1000 MB and the.gif I posted takes up most of that.  But, you can find this in the article about Oswald and his shadows at:

http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2017/08/23/lee-harvey-oswald-and-his-shadows-jfk-running-the-gauntlet-com/

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I see the misunderstanding here, I think. Shadow lines will actually diverge. But the view from an observer will see the shadows converged as one focuses further away..

If I were to a point a floodlight at two poles that were 4 feet apart and measured the distance between the shadows, that distance would yield a larger measurement as I move away from the poles along the shadow. If the flood light was 20 feet from the two poles this would be quite exaggerated. If the floodlight were 75’’, 1000’ or the distance to the sun, the effect would be less apreciable, but the measured distance between the shadows would still be greater then the 4’ distance between the poles, while the viewer standing at the poles would see them converging.

 

However, to a viewer, standing at the poles, the shadows cast by the light at 50 feet would appear to converge even though a tape measure, 200 feet away would prove them to be diverging.

Then we get into what I will guess would be the orthoganal relationships. If we put that light between the poles, obviously, the shadows would divegege absolutely, since the poles are 4 feet apart. If we move the light 1 foot away from the line of the poles (1/4 of the distance between the poles) we reach a point that would still yield no observable or actual convergence. If we move 2 feet from the pole line (half the distance between the poles) we yield no convergence but have a hypothetical observable convergence on a flat earth wth lights that can cast an infinitely long shadow. At 3 feet (3/4 of the distance between the poles), I’ll say that we observe apparent parallel shadows as far as we can see in a real world situation. At 4 feet and beyond (the same distance as is in between the poles) we perceive covergence from the vantage point of the poles, but, were we to measure the distance between the shadows, that distance would get smaller and smaller, but it would never get to 4 feet.

So since we are talking about the sun, 1AU away from Dallas, John is right technically, but he is just playing symmantic games. He is wrong in the application of his understanding of life on Earth.

 

 

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, Fantastical reasoning, really? I am using the optics I have studied for 30 years. I have been determining angles, shadows, reflection and more because it has a lot to do with how to troubleshoot optical problems people have with eyeglasses. I have passed the state boards and studied further. One of the questions on the advanced test asks you to calculate the length of a shadow based on the persons height and distance from the light source. That seems to drift away from eyeglasses a bit but the test is very comprehensive. So I am very confident that minus the occasional mistake old farts make, the methods I use are rational.
 It is a common mistake to think all shadows must behave as you say. It may seem so intuitive to you that you never look beyond to test your belief. Even that crazy shadow behind and below the landing at the top of the stairs is completely normal. If you really want to get past this incorrect concept we could discuss that crazy shadow, and if you are willing to take a piece of paper and stand under a light for a minute we could unpack this whole thing. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael I think so. The floodlight illustrates a good point.  it is all about perspective and as you say you have to apply it to life on earth. Shadows are not light and do not have to move in the same direction as the light. Simply take anything and let it cast a shadow on the wall, now tilt it all around and watch how far you can alter that shadows direction. Even that crazy shadow behind the background makes perfect geometrical sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a technical POV, asserting there are different light sources in the BYP implies the photos are composites created from three or more photos taken at differing times of day. Furthermore, it assumes the forgers managed to stitch these photos together seamlessly, so there is no visible evidence of the “joins” where one photo meets the next. That on its own would be quite a feat. The experts on the record say that simply pasting Oswald’s face onto another body would require a “skilled” technician working with high-end equipment. A seamless composite of multiple photos is another level of accomplishment. The composite argument implies that the forgers were simultaneously technical geniuses and also very sloppy in that the mis-matched shadows reveal their craft. I have a hard time with that, as I also have a hard time trying to figure what any composite work was trying to conceal or why any prospective forgers would take the time to make three forgeries instead of just one.

About a decade ago I worked with people from Framestore, one of the top digital effects companies. Achieving composite effects digitally is much easier than what could be done in 1963. Still, the attention to detail and need to precisely control the filming process was most apparent. One factor is the requirement of “plate shots”, a reference frame of a landscape or background, without actors or other similar elements (see the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_control_photography). A seamless composite of a BYP utilizing photographs from differing times of day would not be achievable without the photographs matching in the same manner as plate shots (i.e. the camera sat on a tripod in the exact position for several hours). Is this a realistic scenario? I don’t think it is.

Edited by Jeff Carter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

I see the misunderstanding here, I think. Shadow lines will actually diverge. But the view from an observer will see the shadows converged as one focuses further away..

If I were to a point a floodlight at two poles that were 4 feet apart and measured the distance between the shadows, that distance would yield a larger measurement as I move away from the poles along the shadow. If the flood light was 20 feet from the two poles this would be quite exaggerated. If the floodlight were 75’’, 1000’ or the distance to the sun, the effect would be less apreciable, but the measured distance between the shadows would still be greater then the 4’ distance between the poles, while the viewer standing at the poles would see them converging.

 

However, to a viewer, standing at the poles, the shadows cast by the light at 50 feet would appear to converge even though a tape measure, 200 feet away would prove them to be diverging.

Then we get into what I will guess would be the orthoganal relationships. If we put that light between the poles, obviously, the shadows would divegege absolutely, since the poles are 4 feet apart. If we move the light 1 foot away from the line of the poles (1/4 of the distance between the poles) we reach a point that would still yield no observable or actual convergence. If we move 2 feet from the pole line (half the distance between the poles) we yield no convergence but have a hypothetical observable convergence on a flat earth wth lights that can cast an infinitely long shadow. At 3 feet (3/4 of the distance between the poles), I’ll say that we observe apparent parallel shadows as far as we can see in a real world situation. At 4 feet and beyond (the same distance as is in between the poles) we perceive covergence from the vantage point of the poles, but, were we to measure the distance between the shadows, that distance would get smaller and smaller, but it would never get to 4 feet.

So since we are talking about the sun, 1AU away from Dallas, John is right technically, but he is just playing symmantic games. He is wrong in the application of his understanding of life on Earth.

 

 

Michael, as I asked John, perhaps you could produce a photo showing the sun's shadows diverging.  Here is a photo I produced for David,  three years ago to show how the shadows of the poles converge.

Poles2_zpsiadtbqnb.jpg

I will repeat, for John Butler, who seems to be have a problem with his comprehension, I believe the BYPs are fake. However, I will continue to criticise CT's, and LN's, who post rubbish. 

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tom Hume said:

shadows.png

I understand your point, Ray, but the example of converging shadows you posted is extreme. The light source (the sun) is obviously near the horizon causing very long shadows that appear to converge into the distance as does the road.

In the Backyard Photos, the sun is very high and the shadows are pretty short. I agree with David, the Oswald shadow and the post shadow should be nearly parallel, and they are obviously not. 

Edit: I'll add a comment to avoid confusion: David drew in the dark post-shadow to show what it should have looked like (or sort-of looked like). The seemingly inconsistent post-shadow is at the tip of the white arrow with most of the shadow out of sight behind the post itself. 

All three Backyard Photos display the same seemingly contradictory Oswald/Post shadows. 

D6D324C5-637D-4631-B6D7-0D7F28E51F17.gif

Tom
 

Tom, unfortunately you, like David and Butler, are wrong, See the above photo, I posted in reply to Michael. The sun wasn't low in the sky. it was produced early afternoon at a similar time that the BYPs were supposedly taken.

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I just did some photographic testing on this post shadow vs Oswald shadow a couple weeks ago. Ray is correct and if need be i might do a video so i can move to different positions and you can all watch as shadows change. But I like thought experiments so try the following one which logically proves rays point.

1. picture yourself standing with the Sun directly at your back and the post directly in front of you. This means the Sun, you and the post are all on the same line of sight. So where is the post's shadow when you are in a direct line with it and the Sun? The answer is the shadow would be hidden directly behind the post. That is pretty easy to visualize and if you agree with me you can consider point 2.
 
2.Now if you understand that you, the Sun and the pole all have to share the same line of sight in order to hide the shadow behind the post, then consider that Oswald's position in the picture does not share that same line of sight. Oswald is not in direct line and so could never have his shadow hidden directly behind him as the post does. 
 
So if Marina was 10 feet away then Oswald is 7 degrees of to the right of the pole and we should see his shadow protruding by the same 7 degrees. But oswald is also leaning and that adds another 7 degrees. Then you add the perspective change of a camera at ten feet and approx 4 feet high and 14 degrees of shadow expands 2 1/2 times to about 35 degrees. (The post shadow is not subject to the same distortion because as the perspective changes vertical lines just shrink in size while angled lines change their angle towards the horizontal). 
 
Although I can account for what should be 14 degrees of original shadow distorted by perspective to 35 degrees, Oswald's shadow is closer to 50 degrees. Still can't explain that. It would take 20 degrees of shadow angle for the perspective to change it to 50(20 x 2.5 = 50) 

Thanks Chris, I'm glad to see somebody else understands suns shadows and perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Morning Ray,

I see you are up early this morning.  It's really foggy here in Central Ky. this morning.  The old timers use to say that for every heavy fog in August, some say September, that you will have a heavy snow during the up coming winter.

I simply stand in awe of Michael Clark's reasoning.  Ray, Cliff, Chris, Jeff, and Tom, you should privately consult with Michael before airing any new notions about the converging and diverging shadows you speak of in your posts.  He will let you know what's what.

I haven't really taken the time to tell you all what your problem is.  I really did not want to embarrass you guys.  It is essentially your political and philosophical views that keep you from actually seeing what is in a particular piece of evidence such as the BYP's.  Sometimes it takes years to clearly see certain details.  Here is an example.  In 54 years no one has told you that there are no motorcycle policemen in Altgens 7 until recently.  According to other evidence there should be.  I am continually amazed at some details that pop out of a scene or the understanding that you arrive at after a lengthy period of time.  A good example of that is the Zapruder film's Mannequin Row is non-existent.  Other evidence shows few people standing between the light pole near the R L Thornton and the Stemmons sign and not the 19 people shown in the Zapruder film.

What is there that you are missing or really not understanding:

1.) First off, the background shadows of the scene are natural and real.  The shadows of the steps ascending along side the house are real.  They move from picture left to picture right.  This means there is only one background used and that background has artificial shadows introduced into it.

2.) A cutout of an Oswald figure (not the real Oswald) has been introduced into the photo by photo editing techniques.  The editor made a cardinal artistic mistake.  He introduced a figure with a shadow moving in the opposite direction of the step shadows.  The figure's shadow moves from picture right to picture left.  The figure's shadow should move in the opposite direction and be in tune with the steps shadows.  This is common mistake with new artists.  So, this maybe an indication that the editor was new to this kind of work and was perhaps Roscoe White. 

3.) The third conflicting shadow is the shadow of under the Oswald figure's nose.  It moves straight down indicating the light source is above. 

These are things you can't escape.  You can only escape these facts if you let your biases interfere.  Or, I am left with the notion that you all are just cynical folks manipulating the data to fit your particular biases.

 

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be mighty interested to know just what  my problem is, John. But before that maybe you would answer a question which you have avoided answering in another subject. You said the following

'Whoever scripted the editing of Bell made mistakes.  I am pointing out two in these posts.  The first was the difference in the number of railroad workers on the overpass in Bell vs. Altgens 7." I asked you how many railroad workers you can see in Altgens7. Perhaps you could answer my question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Michael, as I asked John, perhaps you could produce a photo showing the sun's shadows diverging.  Here is a photo I produced for David,  three years ago to show how the shadows of the poles converge.

Poles2_zpsiadtbqnb.jpg

I will repeat, for John Butler, who seems to be have a problem with his comprehension, I believe the BYPs are fake. However, I will continue to criticise CT's, and LN's, who post rubbish. 

Hi Ray,

All this is more difficult to properly express than it is to understand, I think. 

Lets say the two poles in that picture are 4 feet apart . I am saying that that you could place a 4 foot stick between the shadows te entire length of the shadows. This is assuming that the light source is the sun or or other significantly distant light source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray,

Can you count?  This is a question you can answer for yourself.  Remember, Officer J. W. Foster is standing with the railroad workers.  So, you will have to deduct one from your count of railroad workers.

I would answer this question for you but, my comments are "stupid" and lack "comprhehsion" so, why are you asking me questions you can answer for yourself?  Have you reached that age where things are becoming a bit confusing and you need verification?

You really should pay more attention to what Michael is saying.  Comment deleted due to advice of Michael Clark.  Thanks again.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Not again, David. We've had this argument before. You are reading the shadows incorrectly. In the first photo, where you have added where you think the post shadow should be, you have it going entirely the wrong way. From the camera back to the sun, the sun shadows always "converge," not diverge, because they are parallel. Perspective makes them appear to converge. 

 

As in this photo.

 

shadows.png

 

p.s.doesn't mean that I don't think there are lots of faults with the BYPs.

That’s my point... the shadows do not converge in the opposite direction of the sun, they fall in different directions and merge in the wrong direction....

The late evening shadows shoe this better since the shadows are longer... in the byp, the shadows are not long enough to show convergence... yet parallel shadows cannot cross each other...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is the post and Ozzie’s shadows are converging at much too high and angle verses the rest of the shadows....

They should be almost parallel when in fact they converge even before they reach the white fence... 

either the shadow from Ozzie or from that post is wrong...

Can anyone explain the ghost image insert and why the background of all the byps are skewed?

It should be a perfect match

 

The shadow I placed for the post wshould meet with Ozzie’s shadow at the image’s horizon...  like the photos posted... 

the shadow betrays the composite 

 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...