Astrophotographer wrote:
Quote:
Sigh....You don't understand. You seem to think I am arguing that the two lines are not different. I don't think I ever stated this. It is what you interpreting what these values mean is what is the issue. So what if one line is higher.
In actual fact, Astro....you had previously stated
nothing about the two lines in that animated gif.
You've conveniently ignored my question, and comments about them. Now, at least, you're agreeing that one
is higher than the other.
As for your question..."So what?"......the fact that the 2nd line is
higher than the first line means something very significant....and unambiguous. That is....the object has continued to lift-up higher,
after the subject's hand has let-go of it.
And, since we never see the subject's other hand coming down from the head area....it's reasonable to think that the object has lifted-up
completely under it's own power.
There is, in fact, NO evidence whatsoever that the subject used either hand to lift up that object.
You're free to disagree with that assessment of mine....but I think that it's a logical, and reasonable assessment.
If you can find something in the stills to give me a reason to think otherwise....go ahead and post it. I'm all eyes.
Quote:
You can not draw any conclusion/opinion/evaluation from this and suggesting that it is a mother with an infant is incorrect. That is what is at issue here. I asked for some analysis that shows it is a mother with an infant, which you stated was the most likely explanation for this!
One last time, Astro...
...object lifts-up....without the benefit of the subject's hands.....you do the math.
As for
my figurin'....I've based my assessment...that "Bigfoot w/infant" is the most likely scenario...on what I just talked about, and ALSO on many additional little pieces of evidence surrounding this event.