+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Impossible to refute evidence the BYPs are composites - this is a done deal (/thread-14241.html)
Impossible to refute evidence the BYPs are composites - this is a done deal - David Josephs - 04-11-2015
Quote:Imagine two poles 100 feet tall, with the sun between you and the poles. Do you think the shadows will appear to converge or not? (Not in a photo but if you were looking at the in real life.)
How many times Ray? Shadows converge at their light source, not APPEARS to converge... NOTHING in the real world of physics changes this.
Maybe I miss understand your positioning of me and the poles... regardless of where the objects are... if there is a single source of light, the sun, the shadows still converge in the direction of the sun.
No matter which direction you turn this illustration, no matter which direction you or the poles face and no matter where the sun is... shadows, in the real world of physics Sherlock, converge to their source.
One thing for sure - and I am surprised this image does not make it clear... the shadows cannot CONVERGE in the opposite direction of the sun unless made to appear theat way in a photo. The shadows of the fence behind this boy will NEVER converge in front of the fence. If I took this image from the side with a 35mm or 300mm lens and different distances we can make it appear as if they will.
The only photos that make it appear that shadows converge in the direction of the sahdows is when the photographer is part of the shadow and the vanishing point illusion is amplified
If we saw this entire scene we'd see the shadows all coverging back towards the sun.
Impossible to refute evidence the BYPs are composites - this is a done deal - Ray Mitcham - 05-11-2015
Yes, you misunderstand my suggestion of imagining the position of the poles.
Imagine the sun is behind you. In front of you approximately thirty feet apart are two 100' poles. You are standing on the midline of the poles
Do you think the shadow of the poles will appear to
a) diverge
b) stay parallel
c) converge.
David, vertical shadows will always appear to converge on the vanishing point whether it is towards the sun or away from the sun as the viewer stands.
I have shown you a number of photos which show this. You have yet to show me one where the shadows do not converge when the sun is behind the viewer.
Impossible to refute evidence the BYPs are composites - this is a done deal - David Josephs - 05-11-2015
Ray Mitcham Wrote:Yes, you misunderstand my suggestion of imagining the position of the poles.
Imagine the sun is behind you. In front of you approximately thirty feet apart are two 100' poles. You are standing on the midline of the poles
Do you think the shadow of the poles will appear to
a) diverge - yes, the shadow of these poles on a flat surface will appear to diverge due to vanishing point 3d reality
b) stay parallel - n/a
c) converge. - n/a
David, vertical shadows will always appear to converge on the vanishing point whether it is towards the sun or away from the sun as the viewer stands.
If you mean "shadows of vertical objects" will appear to converge just like the shadows in the image I posted of the 4 people and the road.
In reality we both agree that the road does not narrow and the shadows do not converge except at a point back to the horizon under the sun.
I have shown you a number of photos which show this. You have yet to show me one where the shadows do not converge when the sun is behind the viewer.
And the reason for that is Vanishing Point physics of vision and by default photographs. Anything that extends towards the horizon in a 3D world will appear to converge.
The more important thing is the distances we are talking about. In the BYP there is no reason the post and Oswald's shadow are not nearly parallel.
the fact they are at such a sever angle to each other indicated to me there was something up. Then we look at the ghost and repaste we see the exact spots I speak of are the boundaries for that image.
The information between those lines is different than the photographic information outside them, especially on the left of the photo.
Ray - if you want to claim those shadows work and are consistent with a same image, vanishing point shadow convergence... I think you're wrong.
I think we should see a nice, dark post shadow laying in exactly the same angle from the post as the Oswald shadow is to Oswald.
It doesn't.
So instead of trying to teachme something I already know about photos, perspective, light and shadow - either agree with the analysis or prove me wrong.
Take a photo with two objects of the same size less than 3 feet apart at about 3:30 in the afternoon and show me how the shadows behave the same as the BYPs...
I believe we are on the same side of the coin here and disagree about an issue (vanishing point physics) that has no bearing on the images at hand.
Thanks
DJ
Impossible to refute evidence the BYPs are composites - this is a done deal - Ray Mitcham - 05-11-2015
"Ray - if you want to claim those shadows work and are consistent with a same image, vanishing point shadow convergence... I think you're wrong.
I said in an earlier post "that what you say about the shadows converging too quickly could be right. I am not arguing that. (It may well be due to the camera angle and perspective) As I said earlier I think the photos are fake. Just that you think you have solved the mystery when you haven't."
"I think we should see a nice, dark post shadow laying in exactly the same angle from the post as the Oswald shadow is to Oswald."
That is not what you proposed in the opening post. You showed shadows which diverged. I pointed out that shadows never diverge.
I will repeat that due to perspective, sun shadows of vertical objects will converge whether the camera is facing the sun or away from the sun.
If you disagree with this, then we have no need for further discussion.
Impossible to refute evidence the BYPs are composites - this is a done deal - David Josephs - 06-11-2015
Ray Mitcham Wrote:"Ray - if you want to claim those shadows work and are consistent with a same image, vanishing point shadow convergence... I think you're wrong.
I said in an earlier post "that what you say about the shadows converging too quickly could be right. I am not arguing that. (It may well be due to the camera angle and perspective) As I said earlier I think the photos are fake. Just that you think you have solved the mystery when you haven't."
"I think we should see a nice, dark post shadow laying in exactly the same angle from the post as the Oswald shadow is to Oswald."
That is not what you proposed in the opening post. You showed shadows which diverged. I pointed out that shadows never diverge.
I will repeat that due to perspective, sun shadows of vertical objects will converge whether the camera is facing the sun or away from the sun.
If you disagree with this, then we have no need for further discussion.
When you figure out the difference between Vanishing point physics and shadow behavior in a 10 foot circle we can continue this discussion.
The shadows in the BYP are at angles to each other which are completely unnatural and not possible in the real world.
I'm remain terribly sorry this main and important point seems less important to you than repeatedly telling me about vanishing point physics and then NOT applying it to the BYP and the incredibly short distances we are discussing.
I've asked you repeatedly to download the BYP I posted and draw in the post's shadow as it SHOULD be if this picture was not a composite. I've done it a number of times and even showed you how it conflicts with real shadows themselves...
So once again.. here are shadows which converge at the light source and does NOT converge in the direction of the shadow.
If one of those shadow lines was in the same direction as the post (in red) the image would be so obviously wrong it would jump of the page.
The inset of the BYP shadows and how absurd the child photo would look if all the shadows on the left in the inverted image were at the BYP Post angle bascially proves my point.
As you wrote: "I will repeat that due to perspective, sun shadows of vertical objects will converge whether the camera is facing the sun or away from the sun.
If you disagree with this, then we have no need for further discussion."
So tell me Ray... in the bottom image the sun is in front of the camera and those shadows will NEVER converge in the direction they are falling. IOW behind the camera.
If we can't agree on what we are both looking at then I agree, we're done with this.
The is a great example since the ROAD to the left illustrates the Vanishing Point optical illusion as well as the basic rule of light and shadow. The only way shadows will ever APPEAR to converge is if they stretch towards the horizon like the road on the left side of the boy image.
If the fence on the left was on the same level as the horizon, those red line would converge at the horizon under the sun.
If you are trying to challenge the conclusions I offered here, do so with something in the real world please.
Post any image from anywhere with the sun creating less than 10 foot shadows from behind generates shadows which are at angles to each other as opposed to nearly parallel...
Please do not post another image with the camera in the shadows themselves... that by default creates vanishing point illusions... The same can be said about shadows running virtually horizontally in a photo...
if the shadows fall in the direction AWAY from the camera, even slightly, the vanishing point illusion comes into play
Can you use an image similar in composition to the BYP to prove your point?
Impossible to refute evidence the BYPs are composites - this is a done deal - Drew Phipps - 06-11-2015
As your own images amply show, shadows, which are actually exactly parallel to each other, can appear (by virtue of perspective) to converge or diverge visibly over the space of a few inches or a few feet. It is a mistake to declare that shadows in the BYP that appear to converge constitute "impossible to refute" evidence of a composite photo.
You want to prove this to yourself? Take a photo at eye level of some shadows of parallel vertical objects. Then immediately take the same photograph from a prone position and compare the shadows.
Impossible to refute evidence the BYPs are composites - this is a done deal - Drew Phipps - 06-11-2015
It is perhaps unfair of me to ask this of you, however, it is raining here ATM.
I purposely positioned the camera (without changing the settings) so that the parallel line to the right slants more than the line to the left.
Impossible to refute evidence the BYPs are composites - this is a done deal - Ray Mitcham - 07-11-2015
David Josephs Wrote:Can you use an image similar in composition to the BYP to prove your point?
![[Image: P1010962_zps6ohkh6xu.jpg]](http://s46.photobucket.com/user/Fourbrick/media/P1010962_zps6ohkh6xu.jpg.html)
Unfortunately, I had to use a post on the right as Oswald wasn't available.
Impossible to refute evidence the BYPs are composites - this is a done deal - David Josephs - 09-11-2015
Good point Ray...
Tell me please... I can see your head's shadow by the left pole.
No such shadow exists in the BYP. Would you say that's a fair comparison?
What mm lens you using and at what distance?
133-A... on the left. where is the photographer's shadow?
133-A fits exactly with the blank image... I guess I should have only said that from my POV those shadows give the photos away.
Also, what do you suppose those two shadows about waist high to the left of the Oswald shadow facing the image are?
behind the post under the rifle shadow in 133-B and just there in 133-C cutting across the image..??.
Impossible to refute evidence the BYPs are composites - this is a done deal - Ray Mitcham - 09-11-2015
David Josephs Wrote:Good point Ray...
Tell me please... I can see your head's shadow by the left pole.
No such shadow exists in the BYP. Would you say that's a fair comparison?
I couldn't get further back because of a low wall. All I would have to have done was step back another three feet and my shadow would not have been there. So yes I believe it is a good comparison.
Quote:What mm lens you using and at what distance?
Zoom 25mm at about 8 feet. Slight zoom. (Photo cropped)
Didn't note the details when taking the photo.
None of these affect the overall shape of the shadows.
Quote:133-A... on the left. where is the photographer's shadow?
Probably in the shadow beside the steps. or maybe the camera was angled so that he shadow was omitted.
Quote:133-A fits exactly with the blank image... I guess I should have only said that from my POV those shadows give the photos away.Don't know which two shadows you mean.
Also, what do you suppose those two shadows about waist high to the left of the Oswald shadow facing the image are?
behind the post under the rifle shadow in 133-B and just there in 133-C cutting across the image..??.