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

[David Josephs]

Ever since the Dartmouth/Farid charade I've been trying to find definitive proof the BYPs are composites which removes subjectivity from the equation.

What rules of physics are being broken in these images which renders them impossible as "original" and cannot be refuted based onopinion or POV.

First thing we need do is look at how SHADOWS and LIGHT work.

Basic rule - The shadows of multiple objects will always converge in the opposite direction of the shadow at its light source.
The shadows can NEVER converge behind the subject since the rays created will continue out in different directions. This is not to be confused with the images Vanishing point.

The rule requires the shadow to be cast on a flat surface since anything else will skew the shadow slightly or greatly depending on the object (a shadow on the ground and up a wall is a great example)




So, in the BYPs any shadows cast on the ground behind the subjects will ALL converge back to the source of light... They MUST as this is a basic law of the behavior of light.

Now let's look at the two key shadows in the BYPs - Oswald and the stairway post next to him

As we can see in the top left, the shadows behave exactly the same as in the above example... FROM the lightsource they radiate in different directions yet converge back at the horiszon under the lightsource

The shadows of the post and items to the left of the post facing the image exhibit a shadow which is from a light source further to the left than the Oswald shadow since it is being cast in the opposite direction than it should be.






The manner in which the shadow of this post falls in not consistent with the SAME SOURCE of light for the Oswald shadow.
If anything, the post shadow and nose shadow fall in the same direction suggesting the post and to the left and Oswald's face were photographed at the same time while the body and rest of the image was not.

The Evidence remains the Conspiracy...
DJ

[Drew Phipps]

Ok, I understand (and agree with) your general point about the direction of the shadows. I think however, that there is one possibility you haven't considered: That the "shadow" from the post (which is different) is not, in fact, a shadow from the post. The actual shadow from the post might be obscured (in part) by that white bag or plant or bit of junk on the ground to the left of the post, which appears to be about a foot high, (which would block the camera's view of the shadow) and (in part) by the shadows of the stairs into which it merges.

There are other shadows in that picture with "anomalous" directions, if you assume that a) only objects visible in the picture cast shadows, or b) you know what object is casting the shadow. There is a shadow on the ground that apparently proceeds from Oswald's heel toward the post. There are two "barbershop" stripes on the post itself. The lower "barbershop stripe" leaves the post and crosses the ground towards Oswald's shadow just above where the shadow of the pistol is.

Also, when you drew in the "Actual" shadow I think you have drawn that line too far counter-clockwise. In the original picture, the dark line just to the left of the bright post, stays much closer to the post, in fact (to me) looks parallel to the post - straight up and down, not angling away. Then it intersects shadows cast by the stairway. If you examine the individual pixels of the shadow, there are 16 dark pixel pairs which proceed straight up with no sideways displacement at all until it merges with another shadow. That means the angle from which that black area diverges from the bright post area is less than 3.7 degrees. Your drawing angles away from the post more than 10 degrees.

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.

[David Josephs]

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?

[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.

[Drew Phipps]

You drew in a shadow on top of that white object which should actually be blocking the view of the shadow of the post. Again, the "Actual" shadow, that you drew in there, is wrongly oriented.

The sun's rays are parallel by the time they reach the earth. Go look it up. Your drawings are all of a point source of light and a larger object casting a shadow. In reality, the sun is so huge that you couldn't draw it on a piece of paper and even see an dot the size of Oswald or any other object on earth which casts shadows. You need a object the size of the Moon to cast a shadow for which you could observe any sort of actual convergence/divergence.

[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.

[Ray Mitcham]

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.

David, we are talking about shadows in a photograph, not physics. Obviously shadows do not actually converge on a disappearing point. They only appear to due to perspective. That is what we are discussing, in your altered photo. You have shown your lines as diverging. This can't happen.

I can show you numerous photos of shadow lines converging . Are they all fakes as well?

Shadows converge towards the sun if the camera is facing it, and will converge on a disappearing point with the sun behind the camera.

[David Josephs]

David, we are talking about shadows in a photograph, not physics. Obviously shadows do not actually converge on a disappearing point. They only appear to due to perspective. That is what we are discussing, in your altered photo. You have shown your lines as diverging. This can't happen.

I can show you numerous photos of shadow lines converging . Are they all fakes as well?

Shadows converge towards the sun if the camera is facing it, and will converge on a disappearing point with the sun behind the camera.

In a photo that depicts reality, shadows will not converge in the the direction the shadow is going, just like RR tracks will never converge even though in a photo they appear to.

The shadow of the post and the shadow of Oswald are not from the same photo or from the same source of light. Period.

That the shadow of the post and of Oswald converge so quickly behind them is even further proof of the impossibility of it.

PHOTOS are representations of real world situatiosn Ray... what they depict will depend on many factors not related to the reality or physics of the subject of the photo.

In the BYP the light source is easily defined and the ground the shadows are falling upon is relatively flat. Even where it is not flat, we should see a post shadow crossing over the object at the base of the post.

I am not refuting your interpretations of photos Ray... But claiming that a photo can show shadows converging and what we see in the BYP are two completely different subjects.

A subject that is light by the sun moves to the subject's right by 5 miles...

The shadow that falls from this new location can not fall in a line that converges with the orignal shadow.. it would in fact angle the opposite way and converge with the original back at the horizon under the sun.

The post being on the right of the origgnal subject SHOULD cast a shadow t that performs exactly the same, and NOT at an angle that enables the shadows to converge in the distance...

Just not how it all works Ray... So let's stop talking examples and eal with the BYP.

Give the shadow for Oswald and the garage to the left of him with the shadow on the fence,
where do YOU think the shadow of the post should fall so it works with the Oswald shadow?

[Drew Phipps]

A subject that is light by the sun moves to the subject's right by 5 miles...

The shadow that falls from this new location can not fall in a line that converges with the orignal shadow.. it would in fact angle the opposite way and converge with the original back at the horizon under the sun.

This is completely wrong. Shadows, caused by the sun, emanating from two parallel opaque objects, separated by any distance of less than a few thousand miles, are parallel, and do not converge or diverge at all. Any visual effect to the contrary is a trick of perspective or an optical illusion.

[David Josephs]

A subject that is light by the sun moves to the subject's right by 5 miles...

The shadow that falls from this new location can not fall in a line that converges with the orignal shadow.. it would in fact angle the opposite way and converge with the original back at the horizon under the sun.

This is completely wrong. Shadows, caused by the sun, emanating from two parallel opaque objects, separated by any distance of less than a few thousand miles, are parallel, and do not converge or diverge at all. Any visual effect to the contrary is a trick of perspective or an optical illusion.

No sir, it is not.

Shadows on a flat plane will always and forever converge back thru the opaque entity creating the shadow to the light source.

At the very worst, the Ozzie and post shadows should appear exactly parallel to our eyes.

The very idea that a shadow on the north pole and one on the south would not converge back to the sun is absurd.

Even more absurd is the acceptance that shadows of two objects can ever converge - like RR tracks this too is an illusion of the photograph.

I get that you are trying to say that since the Sun is so much larger than the earth, all the rays would hit us at the same angle... us an extreme example

The shadows created by the Earth and Mars in relation to the sun... pick any two points in space and place these two planets there...

Their shadows, created by the sun, can NEVER converge behind them... but if you extend these same shadows back thru the Earth and Mars the WILL INDEED converge at the sun.

Wheather it's 1 second of arc difference of a light-year, the angle the sun hits two objects in two different places cannot by the laws of physics, be the same...

During an eclipse... the only way an eclipse works is that the shadows line up back toward the sun. As the moon passes beyond the sun, the shadow of the Earth and Moon would converge at the sun, not anywhere beyond the Earth.
They would continue to DIVERGE farther and farther apart yet at the source of light, both shadows have their source.

Do some searching around Drew... All the science sites will tell you that the rays are "NEARLY" parallel due to the distance... but they are not actually parallel.

From any specific point on the sun, a stream of light photons can only travel in one direction... a stream from a different portion of the sun will have a different distance and stream to travel, thereby casting a slightly different shadow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbury_Br...iss_effect


If we are going to make absolute declarations of FACT, they should at least be FACTUAL. Sun rays are NOT infact parallel... only very close.