Craig Lamson Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 I'll leave that for other people on here to judge Craig because you are so dishonest it boggles the mind. Dishonest? Please show where I have been dishonest. Direct quotes please. Let's get one thing straight here shall we? I couldn't give a bag of monkeys about Farid's study because it is as dishonest as you and your cronies are. I only used it to prove how crap and utterly useless it is in proving anything Then PLEASE refute the study. Your complaints about questions he never intended to answer simply don't qualify. Farid left his cheeks and ears out of the model because it had no bearing on what he wanted to try and "prove" eh Craig? Seeing as how he modeled "someone else's" ears for the damn model he may as as well have modeled the correct ones. Did you ever READ his study or did you just look at the pictures. Based on your statemnts it appears you just looked at the pictures. He was QUITE clear about his technique and clear about the questions he set out to answer. The fact that he did NOT ADDRESS YOUR questions is irrelevant nor does it diminish the answers his study found. Its really quite clear you can't refute so instead you nitpick..and very common CT tactic when they have lost an argument and have found their sacred ox gored. And if the cheeks aren't modeled correctly how can you sit there saying he's proved the jaw-line shadows elongate the chin? Cake and Eat it Craig? Cake and eat it. Why not? Prove it wrong My argument is this, regardless of angle of incidence (which I do understand although you keep throwing it out as if I don't) the shadow LOOKS painted in. I don't care about angle of incidence in this circumstance, I understand it from the point of view of the other objects in the photograph, but it doesn't come into this argument because it doesn't look like a damn shadow! It does not look like a shadow! What an amazing scientific argument! If it looked like one, I'd say "hey you know what Craig? That does look like a shadow that would be created by Oswald's cheek." BUT IT DOESN'T because the deviation of the cheek would not produce that shadow shape. Not by a country mile. Heres a little tidbit you you to chew on. If you change the shape of something it changes the way it interacts with light based on angle of incidence. Clearly this is beyond your limited ability to reason. So be it. When you get a clue get back to me. What part of that don't you get? No, the question is WHEN WILL YOU GAIN THE CAPICITY TO UNDERSTAND? Care to explain why the jaw shadow doesn't stop at the jaw line and instead overlays and encroaches onto the much darker neck shadow for everyone? What??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now