It's qualification time; qualification time for Backie.
Now, it's that a single photograph can't record the ENTIRE motion of a subject, for which you would need a series of photographs.
I'm pretty sure I already knew that if a person was walking across America, it would take more than one photograph to record it. The question all along, you dumb pluck, was whether we could tell if someone was IN MOTION from looking at a photo, whether she is MOVING. I never said that you could see the whole Nutcracker Suite ballet in one photo; just that you could see from a photo that ballet dancing is going on.
So, his latest ploy is nothing but a retraction in disguise. He used the word ENTIRE to put the convoy in reverse and back it up, back it up, back it up. He also went with the word WHOLE.
"The whole motion cannot be photographed in one still image."
It never was a question of whether you could capture the whole motion in a photo. It was a question of whether you could tell from a single photograph whether a person was in motion. That's what we were talking about, and that's what we are talking about, you evasive, excuse-making, a-hole. I can just imagine the "dog ate my homework" excuses that came out of you.
And get ready: this disgusting pig has got one more qualifier to complete his save:
"The swing of a fist in a boxing glove swung at Muhammad Ali, his reaction, the other boxer missing Ali, the whole movement of the two men can cannot be completely captured in one still image."
Oh, I get it. Moving can be captured in a photo, but it just can't be completely captured. But, who ever said that the running of a marathon could be captured completely in one photo? But, you can tell that people are running it from one photo, and that's all we were talking about.
"A single, still photograph taken at sunset is not the entire process of the sun setting, jackass."
Except that it's the movement of the Earth that causes that effect, not the movement of the sun. The sun doesn't actually set, jackass.
All I ever said is that the state of being in motion- telling whether the subject is moving- could be determined from a photo, not that the entirety of her motion could be captured in a single photo. And why does anyone even need to state such an obvious thing, that the entire play can't be captured in a single photo, as if we didn't know that? We really needed you to tell us that, Backes? You had to put that in writing, did you?
Backes, you are stupid, and your stupidity reigns whether you are at rest or in motion. The depth of your stupidity is truly staggering. It's really unbelievable that anybody could be that stupid.