03-01-2012, 09:10 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-01-2012, 03:59 AM by Ralph Cinque.)
We are talking about basic INcompetency- YOURS! If Black Hole Man's face is being shaded by the lintel, why are his arms so brightly lite up and also his shirt? We are talking about extremes here. His arms and shirt are dazzling bright; his face is a black hole. Yet, they are essentially aligned with each other. In fact, in a human being with normal posture, the face is anterior (forward ) of his torso. That's because the head leads and the body follows. Why is his face behind the shade line if his torso is not?
And clearly, Black Tie Man is farther back than Black Hole Man. Yet, we can at least see part of Black Tie Man's face. (not that he's real)
And I totally dispute and deny your claim of Black Hole Man being a foot or two or more further back than Doorman. I implore someone else to come forward to render an opinion about that. And if so, how is the light reaching him at all? If he's that much further back, when clearly Doorman is largely under the lintel himself, then why isn't Black Hole Man completely in the dark?
The difference in terms of the plane of location between Black Hole Man's head and his arms, with his arms being around his head, would not be great enough to account for such an extreme difference in illumination: bright illumination vs. total darkness. No way. Those parts of his body are too close to each other. So, don't conveniently make assumptions, such as that his arms are "just" forward of the shade line while is head is "just" behind it. You'd like to think so, wouldn't you? And you're entirely willing to just glibly declare it, aren't you? How irritating. Competence? What nerve.
I realize that the woman in front of him is forward, but notice that her arm is directly in front of her face, whereas his arms are very lateral and very wide in comparison. Do compare. I'm just saying that any attempt to argue that the shading effect of his arms would completely blacken his face is ludicrous.
In regard to the "craning" I suggest to any reader that you get a ruler and run through the vertical axis of Doorman's body and see if his head seems to be rising straight up squarely. Then, turn the ruler sideways and run it across his shoulders. You will find that he is twisted slightly, but the forward side is his left side, the side that is allegedly in front of BT Man. There is no valid reason why we should not be seeing that shoulder. There is no valid reason why the white stripe effect of BT Man's shirt should be covering his shoulder up. The point of Doorman's shoulder should be visible, plain as day.
And again: Who is Black Tie Man? Who is Black Tie Man? Who is Black Tie Man? Who is Black Tie Man? Cough it up! And if you don't know, why don't you know?
Finally, again, this is all a sideline. Apparently, you don't want to talk about my central thesis, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Black Hole Man. My thesis concerns Doorman and his clothes. Apparently, you are afraid to talk about that. You want to keep talking about light and optics like you're Galileo. Well, Doorman isn't in the shade. He's in the light of day, buddy boy. And there's a lot to see.
Uh, maybe because his arms are just forward of the shade line perhaps? You seem to be directly ignoring what I already explained. Raised Arms Man's arms are lit up and his face is darkened exactly because he backed-up just far enough to shade his eyes. In other words he used the shade line as a tool to shade his eyes. This left his arms still in the sun to do their job of shading. He's right where he should be if he was using the shade line to shade his eyes.
The woman shading her face with one hand isn't a valid comparison. There's no shade line with her and she's closer to the camera.
If you don't see Lovelady's obvious craning posture around the doorway corner column we are back to competency issues again - sorry.
Probably due to my tendency for glib declarativeness.
By the way, you could perfectly repeat that shade line today if you took a photo on November 22nd at 12:30.[/QUOTE]
And clearly, Black Tie Man is farther back than Black Hole Man. Yet, we can at least see part of Black Tie Man's face. (not that he's real)
And I totally dispute and deny your claim of Black Hole Man being a foot or two or more further back than Doorman. I implore someone else to come forward to render an opinion about that. And if so, how is the light reaching him at all? If he's that much further back, when clearly Doorman is largely under the lintel himself, then why isn't Black Hole Man completely in the dark?
The difference in terms of the plane of location between Black Hole Man's head and his arms, with his arms being around his head, would not be great enough to account for such an extreme difference in illumination: bright illumination vs. total darkness. No way. Those parts of his body are too close to each other. So, don't conveniently make assumptions, such as that his arms are "just" forward of the shade line while is head is "just" behind it. You'd like to think so, wouldn't you? And you're entirely willing to just glibly declare it, aren't you? How irritating. Competence? What nerve.
I realize that the woman in front of him is forward, but notice that her arm is directly in front of her face, whereas his arms are very lateral and very wide in comparison. Do compare. I'm just saying that any attempt to argue that the shading effect of his arms would completely blacken his face is ludicrous.
In regard to the "craning" I suggest to any reader that you get a ruler and run through the vertical axis of Doorman's body and see if his head seems to be rising straight up squarely. Then, turn the ruler sideways and run it across his shoulders. You will find that he is twisted slightly, but the forward side is his left side, the side that is allegedly in front of BT Man. There is no valid reason why we should not be seeing that shoulder. There is no valid reason why the white stripe effect of BT Man's shirt should be covering his shoulder up. The point of Doorman's shoulder should be visible, plain as day.
And again: Who is Black Tie Man? Who is Black Tie Man? Who is Black Tie Man? Who is Black Tie Man? Cough it up! And if you don't know, why don't you know?
Finally, again, this is all a sideline. Apparently, you don't want to talk about my central thesis, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Black Hole Man. My thesis concerns Doorman and his clothes. Apparently, you are afraid to talk about that. You want to keep talking about light and optics like you're Galileo. Well, Doorman isn't in the shade. He's in the light of day, buddy boy. And there's a lot to see.
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:And why just Raised Arm Man's face? Why are his arms lite up so brightly by the sun if he's in the shade? And regarding the effects of his hands, notice that the woman below him has one arm raised similarly. But, there is not even a partial black hole effect with her. And Doorman is not craning at all. You're seeing things.
Uh, maybe because his arms are just forward of the shade line perhaps? You seem to be directly ignoring what I already explained. Raised Arms Man's arms are lit up and his face is darkened exactly because he backed-up just far enough to shade his eyes. In other words he used the shade line as a tool to shade his eyes. This left his arms still in the sun to do their job of shading. He's right where he should be if he was using the shade line to shade his eyes.
The woman shading her face with one hand isn't a valid comparison. There's no shade line with her and she's closer to the camera.
If you don't see Lovelady's obvious craning posture around the doorway corner column we are back to competency issues again - sorry.
Dr Ralph Cinque Wrote:Your attempt to counter my argument has failed miserably. I make no concessions to you whatsoever.
Probably due to my tendency for glib declarativeness.
By the way, you could perfectly repeat that shade line today if you took a photo on November 22nd at 12:30.[/QUOTE]