Law of Perspective Fallacies

  • 36 Replies
  • 4681 Views
*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Law of Perspective Fallacies
« Reply #30 on: July 13, 2007, 12:54:29 PM »
Using a program won't help. You have to use a lens. As a program blows something up, its just reproducing pixels. A lens will actually provide the real picture because its amplifying light, an infintesimal pixel, so to speak.

Exactly!  Me <3 you longtime!  I hate when people think you can zoom in on an image and 'enhance' it or some shit.  The most you can do is take the colors of the pixels around a pixel and find a happy medium.  This is how Anti-Aliasing works (just in case you noticed that little feature in a game and wondered what the hell it was doing)
OMG!

Re: Law of Perspective Fallacies
« Reply #31 on: July 13, 2007, 03:02:49 PM »
LOL! That post is so representative of Tom's style.
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17189
Re: Law of Perspective Fallacies
« Reply #32 on: July 13, 2007, 03:40:18 PM »
Tom, was there a purpose to that, besides giving me a headache?

It shows that with distance, the lower portion of a receding object is increasingly lost with perspective, exactly as Dr. Rowbotham predicts in Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2007, 03:47:01 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Law of Perspective Fallacies
« Reply #33 on: July 13, 2007, 03:45:24 PM »
Tom, how do you know that the woman isn't an amputee?  Do you get your jollies out of making fun of amputees?  You sick bastard!
OMG!

?

Ferdinand Magellen

  • 651
  • REALLY now....
Re: Law of Perspective Fallacies
« Reply #34 on: July 13, 2007, 03:52:58 PM »
BTW, tom, the woman is bending over. the missing shins your notee indicates are actualy where the woman's feet are. She's sort leaning forward, her hands on her knees, thus making the vertical representation of her you created invalid.

if thats not enough, Commoncents and I have already explained that this experiment requires a focused lens and not a computer because of the inherant imperfections in modern digital recording (in short, there's not enough room to store more than a pixel in a pixel).
Ignoring the truth does not make it go away, it just makes you ignorant and disempowered.

Can you change reality by inventing new names for ordinary things?

?

Marinade

  • 406
  • FE is for laughing at... not with.
Re: Law of Perspective Fallacies
« Reply #35 on: July 13, 2007, 03:57:51 PM »
Tom I can tell you exactly why the shins have disappeared. They are the thinnest part of the body. At the distance the picture is taken the light reflecting off the floor is too bright for the camera to clearly make an image. In fact if you had a better, clearer photo I'd say you could make out the shins.
Haha Tom is so funny. He can't be serious, no one is that stubborn or dumb.

Re: Law of Perspective Fallacies
« Reply #36 on: July 13, 2007, 04:30:57 PM »
Tom, was there a purpose to that, besides giving me a headache?

It shows that with distance, the lower portion of a receding object is increasingly lost with perspective, exactly as Dr. Rowbotham predicts in Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe.

lol Tom, you're using a LOW QUALITY IMAGE. For the love of God look at the pixelation on that thing when you zoom in. How stupid are you? That woman isn't farther away than 100 meters. I've seen people from a MUCH MUCH greater distance and still the remained normally proportional without their legs turning into stumps. Furthermore, your argument (or rather Rowbotham's -- but I swear you must be his reincarnation or otherwise doing a great job of imitating him) is based on a very poor understanding of vanishing poits and of how humans perceive the world. I've already addressed this twice, each time without getting an answer.
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..