Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 2003-08-28 bdcolen@earthlink.net (bdcolen) thoughtfully wrote: >Excellent points, Phong - Particularly as there are references to some >earlier 'problem' involving the photographer, something about his being >barred from a competition. One does wonder about motives here - although >the case presented, at least as much of it as one can wade through, is >pretty compelling. (But then so was the 'documentation' showing the moon >landings to be fake. :-) I'm worried about the number of "absolutes" that are involved in the criticism of these photographs. I'm wary of them because any number of odd things can be "seen" when captured in very small amounts of time. I found the discussion of ripples to be unconvincing. The water in their "reference" image was devoid of artifacts, while the water in the images under question appears to be conjested with surface and sub-surface artifacts that would tend to inhibit ripple formation and propogation. There's something, and it might be the translation at work, about the article that left me feeling there was subtext at work. If the images are real they are amazing. I'd have to think that National Geographic would have looked at them, looked at the stack of slides from which they were produced, and not just run with a CD or DVD full of images. As for the "fake moon landing." ACK! Let's just not go there - otherwise we'll have a FOX special and some person in a white lab jacket will be proving that birds and bumblebees just can't fly and suddenly we'll have birds walking everywhere, mass species extinction, and lots of VERY fat pussy cats. Adam - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html