I’d like to see you make just one point per post, because it makes it harder then for me to decide which category it goes into.
The Stereoscopic analysis - I think might be questionable. Showing how it “Could be” is not the same as “it must be”. There are dozens of nuances to optics that result in an optical illusion of sorts.
I know this guy professes he’s a professional - but I’m not sure he’s actually “proven his point” to the extent of saying “and there’s not another viable refutation”.
He seems to be showing things as though the camera bearing itself is not changed. But if the camera bearing (direction) changes, I think that changes the outcome entirely of the analysis.
His analysis seems to be based upon the camera direction being constant and assumes that only the camera position changed… in which case his analysis holds water.
I’m not sure of this – so for now, put this into “Debated” category.
===
When you post a “set of points” - the categorization of the thread will be controlled by the “weakest link”.
If you want to have multiple threads on the same topic, try titling them alphabetically like this.
“Kubrick Horizontal: {your proof}”
“Kubrick Horizontal: {your proof #2}”
“Kubrick Horizontal: {your proof #3}”
Then we can search for “Kubrick Horizontal” and find the various ways it was proven.
On this site, I want each individual piece of evidence to be debated separately. So that we can deep dive on each, as needed. For example, this stereoscopic proof, should be it’s own thread.
===
If you’ll break this thread apart into separate threads – named as suggested above, then I’ll delete this thread when you are done – and then each will lead an independent debate.
==
I’d be grateful to you if you did that with the other threads you started as well… break them apart into separate proofs., then delete the main thread that had them clumped together.
