14-03-2016, 06:39 PM
You're not answering what Drew and I wrote David.
You're just retreating to your same disproven photo analysis excuse and using it as an excuse to not answer the better arguments.
You have once again shown different photos that violate your very own claims and don't answer the specific things we are pointing out in Darnell (that you've so far avoided). When forced out into the open field of fair debate your claims don't stand up well.
Again: You can see the photos of Darnell and his camera that I linked. Sound analysis and an honest pursuit of the facts would determine what exactly Darnell's lens type was and what setting it was on? This is not as difficult or uncertain as you would want us to believe and a fair determination could be made just by looking at the Darnell photo, which more than clearly shows a normal lens setting and accurate representation of objects and their distances. Mr Josephs, Jimmy Darnell would not shoot a news shot at an extreme lens setting. What you are plainly seeing there is a normal news shot lens setting and its ensuing image. This could be easily found out.
We have already explained why Drew's trigonometry (that you ignored) was a credible standard by which to calibrate that which is seen in Darnell. If you need this explained to you, that trigonometry serves as mathematical representation of the objects and structures in Darnell as they stand in reality. As Drew requested you to answer and you ignored, a simple comparison of what you see in Darnell to this math can reasonably jibe what you are seeing with reality. Since all the subjects that we already know the distances for in Roberdeaux line up correctly what this tells you is there is no such exaggerated perspective distortion in Darnell. We have established a reasonable understanding that objects actually can be directly compared in Darnell and there is no lens-caused disqualifying perspective distortion, as you are incorrectly claiming.
If we did what those who were seeking the facts instead of the excuses would do, we would hunt down the precise lens Darnell used and its setting. We could then make reasonable conclusions from it and apply them to the height argument.
Mr Josephs, you have unfairly ignored the best evidence and arguments and violated the premise of Deep Political inquiry.
You're just retreating to your same disproven photo analysis excuse and using it as an excuse to not answer the better arguments.
You have once again shown different photos that violate your very own claims and don't answer the specific things we are pointing out in Darnell (that you've so far avoided). When forced out into the open field of fair debate your claims don't stand up well.
Again: You can see the photos of Darnell and his camera that I linked. Sound analysis and an honest pursuit of the facts would determine what exactly Darnell's lens type was and what setting it was on? This is not as difficult or uncertain as you would want us to believe and a fair determination could be made just by looking at the Darnell photo, which more than clearly shows a normal lens setting and accurate representation of objects and their distances. Mr Josephs, Jimmy Darnell would not shoot a news shot at an extreme lens setting. What you are plainly seeing there is a normal news shot lens setting and its ensuing image. This could be easily found out.
We have already explained why Drew's trigonometry (that you ignored) was a credible standard by which to calibrate that which is seen in Darnell. If you need this explained to you, that trigonometry serves as mathematical representation of the objects and structures in Darnell as they stand in reality. As Drew requested you to answer and you ignored, a simple comparison of what you see in Darnell to this math can reasonably jibe what you are seeing with reality. Since all the subjects that we already know the distances for in Roberdeaux line up correctly what this tells you is there is no such exaggerated perspective distortion in Darnell. We have established a reasonable understanding that objects actually can be directly compared in Darnell and there is no lens-caused disqualifying perspective distortion, as you are incorrectly claiming.
If we did what those who were seeking the facts instead of the excuses would do, we would hunt down the precise lens Darnell used and its setting. We could then make reasonable conclusions from it and apply them to the height argument.
Mr Josephs, you have unfairly ignored the best evidence and arguments and violated the premise of Deep Political inquiry.