1166622255471

Saturday, January 13, 2007

17 comments:

Buddy Larsen said...

I actually built that in shop, back in the acid days.

bobalharb said...

If so, the clock should be melting;)

chuck said...

Buddy, you just remember building it.

terrye said...

I looked at it and looked at it and can not understand what I am seeing.

Buddy Larsen said...

The visual equivalent of "I was in two places at the same time".

Seneca the Younger said...

Terrye, look at the shadows. It's an optical illusion that only works in a photograph; the real object has carefully-chosen breaks to make everything appear to join.

terrye said...

yes, I see.

Buddy Larsen said...

I don't think there is a 'real object' --pure digital graphic, tho the watch & the graph paper are real, no doubt.

loner said...

Speaking of real and digital, are the pictures of a truck trailer (one is of Pepsi crates defying gravity) in general circulation?

Seneca the Younger said...

I don't think there is a 'real object' --pure digital graphic, tho the watch & the graph paper are real, no doubt.

Nope.

Again, look at the shadows: there aren't enough shadows on the cross pieces.

MeaninglessHotAir said...

Seneca,

Now that's a nice link I didn't know about. I would so prefer to see a post on this to endless rehashes of other blogs' political opinions.

bobalharb said...

It don't square up right. If you measure the lengths, up and down and crossways, things is different, and on a slant maybe, and one bottom may be higher than the other. But I'm crosseyed, and dizzy from looking at it.

bobalharb said...

I'd diagnose a simple time-warp, but the clock looks ok, which is what I can't figure. In a warp, the clocks is usually all screwed up. So I give up.

Buddy Larsen said...

ok, followed the 'shadows' suggestion, and it it's real, there are two overhead light sources, because the weird span has an acute-angle shadow of the left terminus--yet the two cross-spans end-on are not lit, as they would be, by the same source.

charlotte said...

This is too simple an explanation, so probably incorrect, but:

Isn't the arm from the front post cut at an angle and to a length just to appear to stop and intersect with the second post behind and only from a certain perspective (camera position), and the second back post has a short arm to appear as if a continuation of that arm of the first post?

charlotte said...

The light is different on the two sections of that arm coming from the first post and seemingly continuous through the second post. But they're two arm lengths on two different posts. I think that's it and hope to win the million $ this blog was offering for solution.

Thanks in advance!

charlotte said...

Oh, I see Seneca gets the mil. Congrats!




darn.