- Jul 5, 2013
- 11,988
- 14,236
- Funster No
- 26,797
- MH
- A class
- Exp
- Since 2013
Ah now then Paul ....... your post that I quoted compared horizontal roofline with van roof, not the vertical bars on the windows with the vertical side of the van
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ah now then Paul ....... your post that I quoted compared horizontal roofline with van roof, not the vertical bars on the windows with the vertical side of the van
Who says the building is at 90° to the van.Look at the roof line of Shifzz van compared to the roof line of the half blue building behind and now tell me that Siftzz van is level.
Ah now then Paul ....... your post that I quoted compared horizontal roofline with van roof, not the vertical bars on the windows with the vertical side of the van
Who says the building is at 90° to the van.
It was that second shandy he had last night with his packet of crisps. Distorted his vision... assuming it hasn't got subsidence and making him think his MH's out when it's the building ... and the tree!
Now that is another matter. My father was a professional photographer who worked for the Ministry of Works, as it used to be called. In the 1970s he had to get a hand-made mahogany plate camera which could alter the both the vertical and horizontal planes of both the lens and the plate individually to solve the parallax problem. It is a work or art and it is now sitting in the display cabinet in our dining room.parallax error of the camera that would come into play.
It is not clear in that image/ The white bordering the black is not necessarily the van it may be the edge of the window?
Corrected for youShiftzz needs aplumb bobNurse to show him to his room gravity doesn't lie.
My thoughts exactly in post #17.On the full size image, the tall pole to the right is aligned perfectly within 2 pixel with the side of the van.
But... There are also argument against it.My thoughts exactly in post #17.
Why would anyone place a permanent pole at an angle and that angle should exactly match the supposed lean on the van.
Then there's the vertical bars on the window perfectly aligned with the van.
Thats two permanent reference points agreeing.
An extremely slim chance of both points being out of plumb by the same degree.
Ah, the famous leaning tower of Sutton on Sea. Still not a UNESCO site yetBut... There are also argument against it.
The tough thing is we don't know enough about the geometry. Also the camera lens may be distorting things and we don't know which buildings were built by builders with a spirit level and the knowledge to use it.
It's a brilliant picture for creating a debate. I Love it.
Here is a picture that demonstrates some of the problems.
Is the church leaning? Are the lamposts on the left and right leaning?
View attachment 741829
Another shot of the church?
View attachment 741831
Fish eye effect from wide angle lens and converging verticals in the second when looking up at a taller buildingBut... There are also argument against it.
The tough thing is we don't know enough about the geometry. Also the camera lens may be distorting things and we don't know which buildings were built by builders with a spirit level and the knowledge to use it.
It's a brilliant picture for creating a debate. I Love it.
Here is a picture that demonstrates some of the problems.
Is the church leaning? Are the lamposts on the left and right leaning?
View attachment 741829
Another shot of the church?
View attachment 741831
I know they are lens artifacts. I was giving an extreme example of why we can't trust the picture in the original post.Fish eye effect from wide angle lens and converging verticals in the second when looking up at a taller building