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

[Drew Phipps]

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?

That is a completely ridiculous objection. In addition, I believe you asked for him to produce such a photo. Come on David! Don't pull an Albert.

[David Josephs]

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?

That is a completely ridiculous objection. In addition, I believe you asked for him to produce such a photo. Come on David! Don't pull an Albert.

I'm not Drew.

The image Ray posted shows the shadow of the photographer in the image - which means a certain distance and a certain focal length

If the images are similar we should see a shadow of Marina extending to the post when in fact there is no shadow of the photographer at all.

Give the distances we SHOULD see the photographer's shadow... it's not there.

If we are to compare apple to apples - take a photo showing these shadows doing what they do from a distance and focal length that matches...

Ray's photo appears to be a 35mm from a very short distance away.

Every image I've seen with the photographer's shadow in it appears to exentuate the shadow angles - these same impossible shadow angles given the properties of light.

If you think those two shadows are part of the same image - fine. When you add in the ghost, the 133-C discovery, the loss of the negatives, what transpired at the Paine's over 2 days and the BS with Robert and the camera
I think we can conclude these images were created from two or more different source negatives.

I'm perfectly fine presenting the info and conclusions that way... if you both want to keep going round and round with these dis-similar comparisons... whatever.

Shadows do not converge in the direction of the shadow unless there is something misrepresenting reality in the photo... or the shadows stretch to a vanishing point.

Maybe go read Jeff Carter's work as well on the BYPs at CTKA... seems to me you're both spitting into the wind.

[Drew Phipps]

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.

[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.

[David Josephs]

Drew - I did not alter anything.

Ray - thank you for the example and the patience. It does indeed appear as if shadows can be made to look like they converge to a vanishing point based on perspective.

That the ghost and 133-C exhibit lines exactly where I said the image transitions from one image to another.
That on Nov 29th Det Brown here is placed in the unknown until 1977 pose of 133-C
That of the 2 negatives for 3 pictures only 1 survives and the HSCA simply cannot understnad what happened to them... DPD records show they were given back to Rose.

I do have a question then... in the Det Brown image his shadow and the post are not converging anymore yet the post shadow is in the same place as the Oswald image...

How come Brown's shadow is not in the same place as Oswald's?

[Ray Mitcham]

Drew - I did not alter anything.



I do have a question then... in the Det Brown image his shadow and the post are not converging anymore yet the post shadow is in the same place as the Oswald image...

How come Brown's shadow is not in the same place as Oswald's?

Because the shadows in the photo of Detective Brown were caused by a flashgun, not the sun.

[David Healy]

we're sure a flash was used re Det Brown backyard photo?

[Ray Mitcham]

we're sure a flash was used re Det Brown backyard photo?

When I said a flash, David, I maybe should have said an "artificial light source" as it certainly wasn't the sun.

[David Josephs]

we're sure a flash was used re Det Brown backyard photo?

When I said a flash, David, I maybe should have said an "artificial light source" as it certainly wasn't the sun.

It does kinda look like an artificially light scene now that you mention it... it would just seem that Brown himself would be more illuminated with a light creating such dark shadows...


But I see what you're saying.

::thumbsup::