Impossible to refute evidence the BYPs are composites - this is a done deal

[Ray Mitcham]

You also assume a single source of illumination. I don't know if that Reflex has a flash or not. I assume not, else more objects would show double shadows. The sun's rays are, for all intents and purposes, parallel, when they reach the earth. They do not converge or diverge. Nor do shadows. Any apparent convergence or divergence is an optical illusion created by your point of view or perspective, or a tilt of the ground upon which the shadow falls.

I must not be explaining my self correctly Drew.

The physical reality of light doesn't change due to distance. While the arc difference may be in minutes or even seconds, two objects in two different places on a similar plane will not cast exactly the same shadow...

Let me use an extreme example. Whether we talk about the poles or two objects 3 feet apart - the shadows will have slightly different angles off its subject so that both shadows will converge at the horizon under the position of the sun. T

his is a law of physics and light... like Newton's laws of physics - they are LAWS... I am not talking about THE PHOTO representation of the event, but the event itself.



(should be "BUT slightly angels...)

Let's look at this once again...

First off the line angles are exaggerated to illustrate they SHOULD converge in the direction of the sun which for the Oswald portion of the image is above the camera and to the right.

The shadow of the post itself suggests the sun is much closer to the camera (moved to the left in its arc) so the shadow's direction is more vertical, when in reality, if the sun had not changed positions the object on the left of the image SHOULD have a showdow which crosses that blanket and is angled TOWARD the Oswald shadow as we get closer to the sun, not the other way around.









So let's take Oswald's shadow and move it to the post.... The dark shadow that I drew in and the Oswald shadow lay in about the same direction yet the shadow of the post is nowhere to be seen in that line of sight. it's where the white arrow is pointing.

Shadows on a flat surface will NEVER converge in the direction the shadow is falling but only and forever converge back toward the source of light.

The shadows of the post and to its left in this image show that this portion of the image was not taken at the same time as the Oswald portion...

What am I missing here?

The physics is right. Your interpretation is incorrect.

Have a look at some of these photos. The shadows all converge towards a disappearing point in the distance

http://trekmountaingirl.blogspot.co.uk/2...-2011.html
http://www.lizlamoreux.com/be-present-be...adows.html
http://ayearinthepark.typepad.com/prospe...adows.html

Together with the right hand photo in the second set of photos in the opening post. You think it has been altered. It hasn't


Shadows from the sun are virtually parallel due to the distance of the light source from the object. Therefore, like train tracks, parallel shadows will converge towards a disappearing point in the distance, not diverge.

Sun shadows, because they are virtually parallel, will converge whether the camera is pointing towards or away from the sun.

p.s. I still think that the photos are fakes.