selmslie wrote:
No, we can clearly see that you have once more proven everyone else's point - that the perspective did not change because the edges of the two images are parallel.
Your problems are obvious:
- You don't know the meaning of perspective.
- You don't know how to resize to get the images to match.
- You don't have sense enough to not post an image that disproves your claim.
- You don't understand distortion.
- You don't understand geometry. That't not a character flaw but pretending that you understand it does not fool anyone.
- You claim that anyone who does not agree with you is wrong.
- You can't find a way to get out of the hole you have dug yourself into.
- You are willing to lie.
- You insult people who disagree with you.
- Everyone else has been right all along and you have been wrong.
Several of those problems could be accompanied by a suitable pejorative but I will leave it to the reader to supply their own.
No, we can clearly see that you have once more pro... (
show quote)
You have demonstrated that you do not know perspective. The edges are meant to show that, in the best alignment possible (near corner) the chests do not align, as the theory states they should. In perspective, btw, parallel lines (object) are supposed to converge, not remain parallel.
While I so anxiously await the pejoratives, I wish I could claim all the accomplishments you list. However, a practiced eye needs to be turned on them, so here we are:
"- You don't know the meaning of perspective."
Oops, wrong. I have taken several courses, and taught it in college myself. It is simple on its surface (apparently not to all), but cn get quite complex. As an example, we have been discussing two point perspective, when in the real world and in good drawing and photography, three point perspective exists.
"- You don't know how to resize to get the images to match."
Actually, I do. In Photoshop I have to use "Transform/Distort." Interesting that, as it implies to make photos align I have to distort one, in essence removing the distortion in it.
"- You don't have sense enough to not post an image that disproves your claim."
I would post anything that attempts to disprove my claim. I am not a fascist or anti free speech. Especially as a prof, contrary opinions have to be taken into account, contrary options backed with facts crucially so. There have been NO visual proofs submitted. Most "proofs" depended on people using their eyes to judge, rather than the only accurate way, superimposition.
"- You don't understand distortion."
A baseless claim I don't even know how to answer.
"- You don't understand geometry. That't not a character flaw but pretending that you understand it does not fool anyone."
Geometry does not enter into linear perspective. I did get a good grade in Geometry. I don't understand what you don't understand.
"- You claim that anyone who does not agree with you is wrong."
Wrong. I claim that anyone whose opinion is contradicted by visual proof and linear perspective is wrong.
"- You can't find a way to get out of the hole you have dug yourself into."
I shake my head at this. Are you perhaps projecting?
"- You are willing to lie."
And you, sir, are a scoundrel. As an educator, I am most unwilling to lie. It is like a sacred trust. Projection?
"- You insult people who disagree with you."
If provided an example of my insulting someone who did not first insult me, I will apologize.
"- Everyone else has been right all along and you have been wrong."
"Everyone"? Impossible, as there have been differing opinions. Typical, however of your baseless claims, announced with pretend authority, unsubstantiated by proof.
Thank you for the summation of the gripes of those who have not provided any proof of the doctrine they read somewhere, giving me a chance to summarize the counter-arguments.