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

[Ray Mitcham]

I think you're missing out on the bigger significance of those shadows, David. Given the fact that we could conceivably triangulate the position of the photographer by lining up the objects that appear to touch each other from the POV of the camera. Incorporating other folks work into your own, you might be able to determine the time of day, the day of the year, and height of the camera from the apparent difference of the shadows' direction due to perspective effects.

That might just tell you what kind of camera took the photo, and maybe whether it was a real short person or not. You want "irrefutable proof" its a fake? Prove its provenance is faked to start (i.e. that it couldn't have been taken at waist height by short Marina on a spring morning). That MUST be true, if it's also a composite.

Don't complain that someone proved exactly what you asked them to prove, but didn't use an Imperial Reflex camera on a spring day in the backyard at 214 Neely Street in Dallas. Also, as I've said before, (to Albert, if you weren't paying attention) once you start altering the images and making composites, the only thing you prove is that you've altered the image.

Thanks for your comments, Drew.
Just to show David that it matters not whether the shadow of the photographer is in the photo, this is one I have just taken.

Fourteen feet with 50mm lens.


I think I have proved my point that vertical shadows with the sun behind the camera converge, not diverge, which was I said at the start of the discussion.

It's called perspective, David.