Well Martin,
I guess we're going to just have to be disappointed in each other. I apparently don't act right.
Yes Jerry, it seems to be. I acted not right too. My attitude is usually better. ;)
And it seems that you don't want to answer some simple questions about your work.
No Jerry. I was yesterday too tired late in the night here in europe.
For your information I have been to Dallas. I've stood in the locations of all the well-known photographers and as of 1998 it seemed to me that it would be possible to view a distant car and its wheel well over the Nix fence.
You have an outstanding memory to remember that it would be possible to view a distant car and its wheel well over the Nix fence some 11 years ago.
That, and the fact that I've actually worked with the Drommer Survey is what led me to ask the questions in the first place. Because it was obvious to me that you had no actual data on which to base your cad rendering.
Mhh, i assume you read not all what i told in this thread and the other i've linked.
My basis was infact the Drommer Survey map from 1978.
Martin, most people here have been around forums for a long time. It's really obvious when someone changes the subject because they don't want to answer uncomfortable questions. It's OK to admit a mistake. People respect that and I've admitted my share. But hiding behind outrage at my bad attitude is transparent to nearly everyone. Just a reminder.....
It appears to me that you have an issue to answer uncomfortable questions.
Take a look at the Greer thread. Ive found the topic and edited my previous post.
It's OK to admit mistakes. I agree. I've did that in the past here. Are you able to do the same?
I'am hiding outrage behind at your bad attitude? Sorry i don't understand. :o
"So, do you in fact actually know any elevations in the car park or have you just assumed some? Do you in fact actually know Nix's elevation or have you assumed it. Have you, in any way shape or form, accounted for the fact that the size of the possible wheel well would indicate that the attached car was far from the fence?
As i said in my previous posting take a look at WC E 2118. Rails are designed to be flat. I gather meanwhile images from the parking lot from 1963.
They are growing more and more.
The Nix elevation? Look at all that great images from Robin Unger (i can thank Robin not enough for that)
Yes, the maximum location was some 45-50 yards behind the fence. I told that earlier. Have you not read that shock2
You're the person who posted a photo showing almost an entire car over a higher portion of the fence than Nix's.
What? Where? An entire car incl. a wheel? You do hopefully not mean that image from 2007 where Duncan (no offense Duncan) have seen a car wheel?
Yet, you're "certain" that it can't be a car in Nix. Why?
Yes, i said that now very often. And also why. Should i repeat?
And because you're such an expert and because I really want to improve my skills can you please tell me the difference between the "heads" in Rick's photo and mine. Because I'm just too dumb to see the distinction and I really, really need your help."
You mean that enhancing that i did with your software and Rick's. Is this correct?
Well, there is no difference as you see.
The difference between Ricks software and Photoshop regarding "smooth bicubic" filter is obsolete.
I hoped you understand my joke.
Thank you
and all the best
Martin
It's late here as well. Perhaps a lot of our problem is misunderstanding. What really seems to have upset you is the Greer head turn. Since you've been checking on my posting history you might have noticed that I stopped posting in any forums for a long time while we were discussing Greer. That is because my sister's cancer took a bad turn at that time and she passed away. So I apologize for leaving you hanging on that issue and I'd be happy to re-engage at any time. I recall that we were having a very good discussion but circumstances intervened.
Also, I think you may have misunderstood my comments about Rick's enhancements. I was not being critical of them - Rick said I mangled his work and I was just explaining what I had done to them. I didn't think mine were technically superior to his in anyway. Rick's enlargements are really, really good - my problem is that Rick is using his ability to illustrate his point, making a case like a lawyer. So we don't get to see the other information in the film that casts doubt on his case. So he leaves out (inadvertently) the last three frames. He plays the frames at reduced speed so the motion looks humanly possible and he doesn't enlarge all the motion on the front of the fence so we don't notice that the shadows and branches are behaving a lot like his "gunman". Certainly Rick is entitled to make his case but it weakens his argument when he leaves out the problem material.
Finally, there is the question of your CAD rendering. And here I do have a genuine issue with you. Because we both know that any rendering can only be accurate if the data entered is accurate. We also both know that the Drommer Survey had no elevation data for Nix and especially for the car park. So you made some assumptions about the elevations but you did not make that clear when you presented the rendering. You offered it as based on Drommer data. And there was some Drommer data in the model (distance and fence elevation above the ground in front of the fence). But you know that the elevations in the car park are critical and there's no Drommer data for that. So I think your presentation of the CAD rendering lent more authority to the drawing than it actually possessed.
When I visited Dallas I obviously wasn't paying attention to wheel wells. At the time the train box cars in Nix were some type of issue so I was checking out the trains from Nix's position and my view of some of the train was blocked by several automobiles so I know I wasn't looking at just roofs. It's obvious that you can't see the wheels of a car parked immediately behind the fence, but I don't see why we can't see a car at some distance and the size of the possible "wheel well" would indicate a car at some distance. Rails are designed to be flat but you may not realize that the tracks slope upward as they approach the overpass. At least when I saw it the carpark was not a pool table.
OK, done for the night.
Again, my best to you.
