Craig Lamson Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 (edited) [quote name=Lee Farley' date='27 June 2010 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1277645665' I think it best if we keep our "desires" to ourselves after your recent preoccupation and obsession with tea-bags. You have a problem with making a cup of tea? You, nor anyone else, has provided EXACT answers to anything concerning these pictures. You really need to get yourself a dictionary old chum. You use to term ACCURATE and then tell us that no study can be ACCURATE and accurate means to be EXACT. Now you are telling us you have provided EXACT answers when it's plain to anyone with two brain cells to fire next to each other that you haven't because EXACT means "not approximated in any way." Well Lee, what you fail to understand is that the principles of photography being discussed are not open speculation. They are a yes or no, black or white proposition. When someone claims light can't behave in a certain way, it eihter can or it can't. the answer is exact. That answer is not approximated in any way. And yes, I correctly did say no RECREATION can be exact. Your ability to read has gone missing once again. What we CAN do to get to the exact answer to a question is to perform proof of concept experiments to prove the underlying principle. So if we review the claim about the shaodws in the BY photos for example, and that claim states that the shadow under the nose and the shadow on the ground cannot be created by a single lightsource in the exact same position, we find that the EXACT answer (remember this is a yes or no, black or white question) is THE SHADOWS CAN BE CERATED BY THE SAME LIGHT. There is no approximation at all. You might think you're good with shadows Craig, but you're terrible with words. I don't "think" anything Lee, my experience and work stand on their merits. I'm a photographer, not a write to be sure, but its quite clear you have real problems reading. Once again, if he didn't order or pick up the rifle then there is an alternative "story" to these pictures. And there is ample evidence to support the idea that he didn't order or pick up the rifle. "IF" ... More speculation. What wonderful circular logic. THere are EXACT answers to the legitimate question aoubt he BY photos. Those finite answers disprove these claims of fakery. But in Bazzaro Lee's world. lets FORGET the exact and travel the road where speculation is the norm. And round and round we go... There is no going round and round Lee....if YOU are being intellectually honest. The claims of fakerly ...that go beyond "bunnies in the clouds" stand and fall on the basic principles of photography. The claims can only be true or false. There can be no approximation. And of course that is what has you "shaking in your boots".... ...oh, and yeah, I'm shaking in my boots. Yes, you are. Edited June 27, 2010 by Craig Lamson 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