12-03-2016, 01:37 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-03-2016, 02:18 AM by Albert Doyle.)
Drew Phipps Wrote:You guys may be tired of explaining things to Albert, but explain it to me. How on earth do you think that a significant alteration of image size is possible from a camera distance of 90 feet (based on Robardeau's map) where the two people are within, at most, three feet difference in distance of each other? At most, you have a true image size differential of .02 degrees (inv sin (1/90) - inv sin (1/87)), which, at a distance of 90 feet, amounts to .38 inches in height. Clearly that cannot account for the height discrepancy between Frazier and PM.
If you had some sort of funky lens/focus combination that could distort and elongate the perspective about 20 times normal at a distance of 90 feet, wouldn't it be obvious looking at the rest of the picture?
If you read the thread I made both those points previously and they were ignored. That's what I meant by the photogrammetry these men were citing was with me if you follow-through on it. By the very photo science they cite the most difference any lens distortion could cause would be a fraction that would still not disprove the numbers involved. But anyone could look at Darnell and see there is no such exaggerated expansion that David is using as an excuse to not answer this simple evidence. No competent camera man would shoot in an exaggerated lens setting. Not only that but since Prayer Man is at the front of the landing there is no such perspective shift at all. Not even a fraction. These men are desperately trying to make this about me but any credible analyst will see the arguments exist in objective science and are totally separate from any personal attribution.
The opponents' argument is basically that since extreme depth perception and relative size distortions can occur between various lenses that therefore no analysis of any photo is possible. This is obvious rubbish since we have more than adequately provided evidence like the common lens used by news camera crews back then as well as the plainly apparent perspective seen in Darnell throughout the photo that seriously narrows down the possibilities.
They'll ignore them when you ask them too Drew because you simply don't understand how stupid you are and how much more aware of the sophisticated science the opponents are. ::laughingdog::
.

