Mr. Skipper's original Report 193 has been removed from the Mars Anomaly Research web site and a new Report 193 has been added. Since the new report does not cover the same topics as the original, please be aware that references in this thread to Report 193 will be confusing to anyone who did not see that original report.
Let me tell you why. Because often there are no better images available (mars rover photgraphs particularly) and because even when there are better images available, sometimes they still do not give the correct truthful information.
I and others have asked you numerous times now, whether you believe that the images are representative of the true capabilities of these cameras and lenses and whether you believe the images to be unaltered. You continue to refuse to answer these questions.
OK, so you point out places where you believe our findings are flawed, but you do not comment on the other (perhaps unflawed) findings. I find that a strange paradox.
So, I will ask you one last question - Is this an un-altered image you have shown us ? Because if it is altered in any way, then your proof is invalidated.
...and the source of your un-altered image that proves your point above is please?
Why does everyone insist on taking images that are in JPG format, a COMPRESSION algorithm for smooth photographic display, with KNOWN COMPRESSION ARTIFACTS, blowing them up 500% and then "discover" horrendous anomalies with convoluted conspiratorial backstories when the "evidence" is nothing but a blurred blob at the level of resolution of the compression?
Don't use JPGs if you're trying to look at something a few pixels wide. They are NOT RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC TOOLS for this type of image analysis.
Lovely graphics but im sorry to say a waste of time.. I think I need to be clearer. Im NOT talking about the shadow dropping off bag onto ground! Im talking about the actual shadow on leg pouch only. It stops in the shot below, before end of bag! Its a small but an important piece of detail. As for the contours lol.. Just look at your image. The shadow follows the leg round .. Notice the curve. Now , making allowance for leg pouch flap the shadow cant be flat through the whole diagonal with no deviations.
I did state that Nasa didnt have to block in the shadow as it would have fallen ok where the block was. They had to have blocked this in for a reason.
As for the shadows converging.. yup it was a mistake.. thats all.. dont tell me youre perfect? Where here to find the truth not dance on the grave of a mistake!
O'brien, You've unfortunately thrown the baby out with the bath water. I dont always agree with Skipper but he's noticed a problem. The Obvious one is that rake shadow! You need to look closer at it to start.
A dead end to the shadow? Its obvious that the rake isnt floating in mid air. The astronaut is holding it!
This is a non-issue. This is how shadows work.
Where do you EXPECT the shadow to be? If it doesn't come to a "dead end" at the end of the astronaut's leg, are you telling me that you expect it to be on the ground by the rock, and to form a continuous shadow with that on his leg? Where exactly do you expect it to be?
thewatcher wrote: But with all that experience you have have you ever seen a shadow not follow the contour of the ground it falls on?
It does follow the contour. Why do you say it doesn't? What do you expect the shadow to look like? You do realize that the shape of a shadow depends on viewing angle, right? A shadow of a pole cast on a set of stairs CAN look like a zigzag line from one viewing point. It can also look like an absolutely straight line from a different viewing point. Want me to go photograph an example?
thewatcher wrote: Ok, Skipper made a little mistake on shadows running Parrnell.. Its made a lot and is wrong. Singular and multiple vanishing points etc are always a little misunderstood. But youre not looking at the rest of the picture. That rake shadow has obviosly been painted in.
No. He made a HUGE mistake, and based the majority of a report on it and came to incorrect conclusions based on his lack of knowledge of shadows.
There is absolutely no merit to the statement that the rake shadow has been obviously painted in.
O'brien, You've unfortunately thrown the baby out with the bath water. I dont always agree with Skipper but he's noticed a problem. The Obvious one is that rake shadow! You need to look closer at it to start.
A dead end to the shadow? Its obvious that the rake isnt floating in mid air. The astronaut is holding it!
But with all that experience you have have you ever seen a shadow not follow the contour of the ground it falls on?
Ok, Skipper made a little mistake on shadows running Parrnell.. Its made a lot and is wrong. Singular and multiple vanishing points etc are always a little misunderstood. But youre not looking at the rest of the picture. That rake shadow has obviosly been painted in. The reason is beyond me as they would have got away with it by just leaving the natural shadow alone. Now thats the question. Why screw around with the rakes shadow?
OK, since you have started this thread and appear to be critical of Mr Skipper's analysis of the photograph, I feel sure that you would like to add your comments about the other points that he raised so that we can have a balanced view.
Oh, but it's a photo from the government. I suppose the explanation is that of course this photo has been tampered with as well.
It's obvious from Report 193 that Mr. Skipper completely misunderstands how shadows work. The conclusions he draws from the shadows are absolutely incorrect.
