Backes needs the image in the photo to actually move in front of his eyes before he will recognize motion:
"You can stare at these still photographs of yours for years Ralph and the subject(s) in them are never going to move."
Yeah, I know, Backes. But, the question- the only question- is whether you can tell whether a subject was in a state of motion when the picture was taken. And the answer is yes.
We don't have to see Michael Jordan dunk the ball in the basket to know that he was in a state of motion when the picture below was taken.
That is the point, and it is the only point. Bringing the issue of "whole" and "complete" into it is just a distraction. That's not what we were talking about. It's whether the subject was moving at the split-second that the photo was taken. Can you tell whether a person in a photograph was at rest or in motion at the instant that the picture was taken? That's it. Period. Nothing else. That's the only thing we were discussing. The shit you are spewing now is just a deliberate attempt to evade and confuse the issue. Not even the few friends you've got are buying it.