Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Ellison Wrote (and edited 7 times by time of
> this reply):
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
>
>
> > Compare the above two images. Note the area
> below
> > the sieve.
> >
> > In the Chapuis image the lower 20mm of the
> > cartouche, (below the sieve), is obscured by
> the
> > out of focus foreground side block. Wide
> aperture
> > shallow depth of field. Available/ambient light
> > illumination.
> > Low, oblique camera angle and close focusing
> > distance..
> > Both paint runs are below the lower extremity
> of
> > the sieve.
>
> Please. In the entirety of what Chapuis did
> capture (which includes the heaviest applications
> of paint, the characters within the cartouche),
> there’s not a hint of the paint having run or
> having been noticeably runny.
>
> You’d have us believe that all of the action
> happened in the tiny area hidden by the angle.
> What are the chances?
>
> And you’re making a mountain out of a JPEG, a
> format prone to colour bleeding, which is going to
> play merry hell with what you’re trying to prove
> with it.
>
> Oh, look, there’s extra stuff, which adds
> nothing on the question of the format and nothing
> on why the paint didn’t run in the nearly all we
> can see of the cartouche—so SNIP.
>
> > Having said that you probably can't see it ..
>
> Such is the poverty of your imagination.
>
> M.
I paint my carvings.
I use water based paints
I am painting on a rough surface. Mostly wood.
I paint free hand, which is amazing for a person who can't really draw, anyway
when making a rounded/curved stroke I lightly ground the brush tip and flow in an arc. No matter how hard I try the line is usually thicker at the end of the stroke.
It's all about the execution.
Warwick
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Ellison Wrote (and edited 7 times by time of
> this reply):
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>

>
>

>
> > Compare the above two images. Note the area
> below
> > the sieve.
> >
> > In the Chapuis image the lower 20mm of the
> > cartouche, (below the sieve), is obscured by
> the
> > out of focus foreground side block. Wide
> aperture
> > shallow depth of field. Available/ambient light
> > illumination.
> > Low, oblique camera angle and close focusing
> > distance..
> > Both paint runs are below the lower extremity
> of
> > the sieve.
>
> Please. In the entirety of what Chapuis did
> capture (which includes the heaviest applications
> of paint, the characters within the cartouche),
> there’s not a hint of the paint having run or
> having been noticeably runny.
>
> You’d have us believe that all of the action
> happened in the tiny area hidden by the angle.
> What are the chances?
>
> And you’re making a mountain out of a JPEG, a
> format prone to colour bleeding, which is going to
> play merry hell with what you’re trying to prove
> with it.
>
> Oh, look, there’s extra stuff, which adds
> nothing on the question of the format and nothing
> on why the paint didn’t run in the nearly all we
> can see of the cartouche—so SNIP.
>
> > Having said that you probably can't see it ..
>
> Such is the poverty of your imagination.
>
> M.
I paint my carvings.
I use water based paints
I am painting on a rough surface. Mostly wood.
I paint free hand, which is amazing for a person who can't really draw, anyway
when making a rounded/curved stroke I lightly ground the brush tip and flow in an arc. No matter how hard I try the line is usually thicker at the end of the stroke.
It's all about the execution.
Warwick
" I have always found that the main obstacle to free
association on these boards is the broad
misconception that what we do not know is more
significant than what we do know."
Warwick L Nixon, March 8, 2019
association on these boards is the broad
misconception that what we do not know is more
significant than what we do know."
Warwick L Nixon, March 8, 2019
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.