Treblinka II Narrow-Gauge Rail.

Here is what it looks like when you actually align the vanishing point of the crop with the bottom layer image.


Now try this exercise against a known standard-gauge railway, such as any of the ones I just posted. You can even feel free to rescale the crop if you think that will help you (it won't). I'll wait. 

I doubt he will be eager to repeat this experiment with a standard gauge railway, so I took the liberty of overlaying the crop with the image of the Sobibor standard-gauge railway:


The spur is unambiguously a better fit with the narrow gauge rail:

You are rotating the pictures into each other when you wish to show convergence.


After doing that, the planes of convergence are different now.  You are then looking at the projection of the one plane onto the other.

It is you that is MAKING them converge.

Do the same with another picture of standard gauge.  And then you'll find that you get the same thing.

The length you are establishing is all in your head.  Parallel lines will project onto a rotated plane to make any angle you wish.  You are merely lining up cross-lengths within intersecting planes.

You are not determining common vanishing points - you are IMPOSING them - in different planes for crying out loud, lol.

Now with this picture you have chosen to equate lengths along different planes and act as if they are divergent.  They happen to be whatever rotation you used.  You simply choose a double standard in your rotations to seemingly converge things to your preconceived notions.

Empty your head out from your preconceived divergence and rotate these 2 pictures to converge - as you did with the other picture.  There's simply no difference - other than in your head.

Show that these 2 pictures converge in exactly the same manner as you think you showed for the other picture.  Empty your head of your preconceived bias on that.

You're playing mind games with yourself (and us)!

HINT:  You do not know the length between the rails in either of these pictures.  You can always rotate in the 3rd dimension to project any angle you want - and call it some sort of "proof".

You aren't aligning the vanishing points, so I have no idea what you think you are comparing. Translation and rotation and rescaling do not change the angle of the lines at the vanishing point. So these transformations used to show correspondence are completely valid.


The angle of the vanishing point is invariant to translation, scaling, or rotation, so applying those transformations doesn't impact anything except make it easier to see that the width of the rails is narrower for the Treblinka spur than it is for other images of standard gauge railways.

Why did you even put the crop where you did in the Sobibor image? You are just arbitrarily placing that crop wherever you want. If you want to compare the relative width visually, you should align the vanishing points as I did. 

You may find this video helpful, I timestamped a good starting point:





The video was captured at the very same road that embedded the rails of the Treblinka spur we have been discussing. This video is taken at nearly the precise location of this photograph:


Here is a frame from that video from almost the same sort of view as the above photograph, except it's taken a bit further up the railway:




On the left is not the T-II spur, that is the Malkinia-Siedlce line, and it is indeed standard gauge as you have observed. The "Treblinka spur" though ran along the right side of the photograph and turns into the woods. I believe the Treblinka spur was long gone by the time that picture was taken, but the rails are still visible in the road. You may be interested to see under the Comments of the video, sorted by New, that Oozy asked the poster of the video his opinion regarding the gauge of the railway. Here's the exchange you can see in the comments section:




Oozy is Iron Lion Zion, which I know because he linked us this exchange on the SSF and mentioned he was talking to Alan. As you can see, Alan says "It has often been written that it was a narrow gauge railway", which is a very very interesting response to say the least. So that photograph you posted is not of the Treblinka spur, it's the Malkinia Siedlce line and you can see the Treblinka spur in the background turning into the camps. The gauge is not able to be determined from that photograph due to the distance. 

I think I have a more easily understandable way to explain why your method is too sensitive to viewing angle to be of practical use.

Here is something I drew quickly just now just to get a quick representation of the thing you are doing. Although what you are doing is much worse because here I'm not even factoring in that the viewing angle is not even straight-on in your pictures. Not being straight-on means that distances are even more skewed between parallel lines (the distance along the one rail to vanishing point is different than for the other rail).

But anyway, here is a straight-on representation of 2 R tracks - one 400 pixels wide and the other 800 pixels wide:




Since I didn't even have the patience to draw some of the things at the exact pixel (although the triangle vertices ARE exact in this quick sketch - the vanishing point is (500,10)), there are some extraneous lines that might muddy one's understanding. They're only there for me to get a quick answer for my calculation.

In the straight-on view of one perspective, the track widths are 400 and 800. And the distance to the horizon is 700. Let that sink in, the distance to the horizon here is less than the track width. The horizon isn't very far away in this picture. The one track width is double the other.

Now if I were to ask what vertical angle I need to view the smaller track width so that it coincides with the larger track, that angle would only be 26 degrees. If I were to lift the plane 26 degrees for the smaller track width - it would then be identical to the larger track width.

But in reality, your pictures are representing much larger distances than the track widths. R1 > R2 >> D1 > D2. You are then dealing with the ratio between between R's that are negligible => implying that the viewing angle shift in that 3rd dimension only need be fairly negligible.

Does everyone get that?

The method you are using needs to evaluate what you are doing with an objective metric.  Any parallel lines can easily be made to appear to be identical with a ridiculously small change in viewing angle - if both horizons are far greater than the distances you think you are comparing (and you only think this because you never even have a metric to know any distances).


EDIT:  I probably should have explained the picture a little more.  The black lines is the one track and the red lines the other.  The green line is the red track lifted above the common plane by 26 degrees - where its gauge then coincides with the black gauge.  The bisector green line is only there to quickly give me the height I need to determine that the angle is 26 degrees.

Essentially, if R >> D you can make any parallel lines look like each other with only a slight modification of viewing angle.  I don't believe it is true that PR can judge the viewing angle to appropriate precision.  That is a delusion in his head.  He is not determining a metric and therefore can think any distance is equivalent to any other between different pictures.

Not at all significant do the angles need to be different.

I've now just though of a different way to explain that last post.  You need to discern the differences between R1 and R2 in that sketch - when the R1 and R2 in your pictures are essentially the same.

You want to determine delta_D and delta_D is proportional to delta_(r  * theta).  Delta_r is for all practical purposes zero.  Your determination of theta is not precise.  You haven't determined any objective distances and don't know what your Rs are.  And in your pictures, the Rs are even different for each leg of the track - since you aren't even viewing them head-on.

You have no reason to believe that your vanishing points are at the same distance in your comparisons.  You have not determined any distance.  Therefore you could make any angle you wish.  You haven't nailed down any distances to know if you are lining anything up correctly.

Prove to me in any of your comparisons that the distance to vanishing point in each of your pictures is the same.

Do you understand that you need to do that?