XPost: alt.alien.research, alt.alien.visitors, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.paranormal.crop-circles, sci.skeptic
From: cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com
Angel of HaShem/Messenger wrote:
> "Mike Painter" wrote in message
> news:m0YRg.6343$6S3.242@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>> Angel of HaShem/Messenger wrote:
>>> "Mike Painter" wrote in message
>>> news:EleQg.2926$vJ2.2352@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>>> Angel of HaShem/Messenger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Absolutely fucking awful quality. The resolution is so low that
>>>>>>>> an 4.5 metre long cars on the motorway next door or the car park in
>>>>>>>> the top left only occupy 4 pixels.
>>>>>>> I have an LCD....
>>>>>> So?
>>>>> Resolution....
>>>>>>>> So anything substantially less than a metre in width
>>>>>>>> wouldn't even register on the picture. Including people or
>>>>>>>> tracks.
>>>>>>> What kind of monitor are you using....?
>>>>>> A 19 inch LCD Samsung monitor with 900:1 contrast and a mouse
>>>>>> equipped with a 10x zoom button.
>>>>> I have a Tatung 17 inch with 500:1....and an app that zooms into
>>>>> infinity. So what....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "zooms to infinity" in a digital world is meaningless.
>>> Oh, a metaphor. Of a two dimensional world.....
>>>
>>> In the 3 dimensional natural Creation, infinity isn't. meaningless....
>>>
>>> What I said is a metaphor of, looking into space, you dope. When you
>>> do, you see infinity. And you can't see anymore than that. You took it
>>> literally.
>> Usually a person responding to questions about a monitor gives answers
>> that have some bearing on the subject or indicate they have changed the
>> subject.
>
> The subject is, he has 900:1 contrast And I have a 500:1....
> Everybody has mouse that zooms in....and out.....
The subject is that you felt like boasting what an amazing screen you
had, enough to bring it up in the thread without prompting, only to find
I happen to have a better one.
I must correct myself though, I looked up the specs for my monitor and
it's actually 700:1. Which is still a better contrast ratio.
> One can only get so close before the picture, being zoomed in upon,
> becomes useless....
And in the case of that midden of "evidence" you supplied, zooming is
barely required. The pictures are awful quality at normal scale.
Certainly no need to zoom to "infinity", whatever the hell that means.
To recap:
* Low resolution
* Very high jpeg compression leading to lack of detail, artifacts all
over the place
* Bad colour balance and contrast
* Most look like they were scanned from magazines or photos by someone
armed with a Logitech hand scanner
* All but one had obvious lines, man made tracks or tramlines even with
all those impediments
* The one remaining was even worse quality than the rest, so saturated
and low contrast that you couldn't tell anything at all from it.
> For Christ Jesus' sake there is an energy involved in the bending of the
> plants. An inch from the ground. He totally ignores that fact. They're not
> plank wank yanked, nor rolled over.....
So you say. You still haven't provided a single shred of evidence to
support that claim.
> And out of all the markings that appear on the globe, there is at least one
> that the stinking feet of hoaxers could not have violated. And that's all we
> need. And he had some in the links I posted. But refuses to see any in his
> obvious desperation, for there not being another causation for their
> forming.
Which one is that? It certainly isn't any of those wretched pictures you
supplied.
--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
