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

[David Josephs]

Ray - we must have some disconnect... With a light source from behind.. shadows of two objects next to each other by 1 foot or 7000 miles cannot converge in the distance... that is called a vanishing point optical illustion... DISTANCE does not change the physical properties of either the RR track or the shadows.

RR tracks NEVER converge - they only APPEAR to due to the properties of 3D reality.

Look again at the below illustration please. There is no place out to the right where the shadow from the top of the ball will ever converge with the shadow from the bottom... again whther these two spots are miles apart of inches the SHADOWS cannot converge in the distance but can only converge back at the light source when a stright line is drawn from the shadow thru the centerpoint of the object creating the shadow

The photos you linked to may make it APPEAR that they converge - but in the real world of physics the photo is a misrepresentation of the property. Shadows are not RR tracks, tracks are built to be parallel and only appear to converge while Shadows are built to converge at the source and may appear not to in a photo.



The only way two shadows converge on a flat surface is if there are two light sources.





I have to go back to this as well Ray. This is an exact representation of the sun shining on objects laid out like buildings or any other example you want to name. NONE of the shadows here converge in the distance, they converge at the light source.

The distance of the sun creates the same result.

If I am standing at point A - there is a specific and single set of 3 points running from the shadow thru me to the light source. I draw a line on the ground from my center point thru the shadow to the horizon (call that the OZZIE spot)

I walk over to the POST spot. but first....

We agree that the sun remains a single point source of light - that the spot on the horizon the OZZIE shadow creates is indeed a single point related to a single point of light, the sun, and the sun is in front of the subject.

As I move to the WEST from the Ozzie spot to the POST spot, what happens to my shadow?
Does it's angle away from the light change at all? of course it does

But it does not change so that it's shadow and Ozzie's shadow would converge at the horizon... in fact their shadows would be farther apart as that tiny angle expands the distance from the end of one shadow to the end of the other






Here is a prime example of the images you;ve been claiming proves the opposite.

The way the photo is taken, it APPEARS that these shadows would converge if you extended them.

We know this is not physically possible - so it must be a property of the photo which causes this illusion.
and even so these lines created by the shadows are relatively close to parallel... the fact that the camera is part of the shadow and in line with the objects creating the shadow creates an illusion that these are convering shadows.

The BYP were not taken this way.

Now look at the Post and Ozzie shadows in the BYP. If the camera was tot he left of the post or the right of Ozzie the ILLUSION of the shadows would be the same... but that's not what we have.

In the real world Ray - the shadows from these people converge at a spot at the horizon directly under the source of light. That they APPEAR otherwise does not change physics.




We have SUN > Camera > Subject > Shadow.

In that case, like the examples at the beginning of the post and with the "POST/OZZIE" example, the shadows on the flat ground leading away from each subject CANNOT and WILL NOT converge in the real world of physics. (you can show me photos from now till the end of time Ray - does not change the physics involved)

The BYP shadows not only converge in the opposite direction of the sun but that the two angles are so conflicting AND that the image is taken with a 50mm lens which is about as close to regular vision as it gets - proves these photos were not taken in their entirety at the same times.

If the camera and the ground are not causing the shadows to travel in different directions, the composition of the photos does.

One last image... it was claimed by LNers that this image was created for the JFK film. Given what we see here, it is not possible that Oswald was removed from this image, but very possible he was added. Notice please how the shadows on the right side of the image match Oswald's shadow while those on the left do not.