Sunday, October 23, 2016
What did I tell you, David? I told you that every shadow is cast by something; some object. So, you can't say it's a shadow without naming the object that cast it, and how it was in position to do so. It has to make sense according to physics. But, you haven't even named the object.
The shadow on his neck is presumably cast by his chin, although what is casting the shadow on the lower part of his face I do not know.
But, the inky black disc around his eye with the stripe across the bridge of his nose, what could possibly be casting that shadow?
And if you look closely, there does appear to be an eyeglass temple going over his ear.
Now, when you complain about the missing frame, don't blame me. There is a lot of crude stuff they did, photographically, thinking that no one would care or even notice. They were very arrogant people who had nothing but contempt and scorn for the common man and his inability to observe details. So yes, I really do think they would paint in a pair of sunglasses onto a person's face without also painting in the frame. And if you look closely, you can see the "temple" of his glasses which is going over his ear. Apparently, you're not too good at observing details yourself.
Alright, now you know that you can't claim shadow for the black disc without citing the object that is casting it. So, you can either cite the object, which will then be scrutinized, OR you can retract the claim. Take your pick. But, that's it. That's where you are at. That's the crossroad that you are at.
So, what's it going be? Cite the casting object or retract the claim?
And if you won't retract it, I'll retract it for you.